1920-06-19

CUSTOMS ACT-PROPOSED EXPORT REGULATIONS.

Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. McMaster be substituted for that of Mr. King and the name of Mr. Bureau for that of Mr. Lapointe on the Special Committee appointed to consider and report upon Bill. No. 182, to amend the Customs Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford) moved (for Mr. Cronyn):
That the orders of reference, reports, proceedings and evidence taken by the Special Committee on Pensions and Re-establishment, together with a suitable index to be prepare! by the Clerk of the Committee, be printed as an appendix to the Journals of the present session, and that 2'0'0 copies in English and 50 copies in French he printed and sent to the Clerk of the Committee for distribution as instructed; also, that 1,000 copies in English and 200 copies in French of the third and Anal report of the said committee be printed forthwith for distribution in a similar manner by the Clerk of the Committee, and that Rule 74 be suspended in reference thereto."
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
_ FIRST READING.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Graziano Ber-tini.-Mr. Pedlow.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of William Henry Caswell.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 187; for the relief of John Covert. -Mr. Porter.
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Mary Ireland. -Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill Ntt 189, for the relief of John Daniel Mills.-Mr. Ross.
Bill No. 190. for the relief of Joseph Aimee Wilfrid David.-Mr. MacNutt.
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Richard Simpson.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 192, to incorporate Reliance Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Cas-grain.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Right Hon. Sir George Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce) the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend The Canada Grain Act, chapter twenty-seven of the Statutes of 1912, and to provide,-
1.	That section 157 he amended by adding a provision that the person operating a country elevator shall in the event of the purchase by such operator of any grain previously received at or in such country elevator and for which a 
warehouse storage receipt or a storage receipt for special binned grain was issued and is outstanding, issue, on the surrender of any such receipt, either a cash purchase ticket in, the form A in the schedule to the said Act, dated the day the grain is purchased, for each lot or parcel of grain so purchased, or a tract purchase note in the form G in the schedule to the said Act, or a certified cheque drawn on a chartered bank of Canada for the amount payable for such purchase.
2.	That subsection four of section 160 be amended to provide that in every case where grain has been delivered at any country elevator, or where grain which has been so delivered and for which a warehouse storage receipt for special binned grain was issued, is subsequently purchased by the operator of any such elevator anti a cash purchase ticket issued therefor to the person by whom such grain was delivered as aforesaid or to the person, lawfully entitled to hold and surrender such warehouse storage receipt or storage receipt for special binned grain, if the paying agent of such warehouseman within twenty-four hours after demand by the holder (provided such demand be made during twenty-four hours after the issue of the purchase tickets, neglects or refuses to redeem such oash purchase ticket, the said holder may at onoe, upon surrender of such cash ticket, demand in exchange therefor a warehouse storage receipt 'bearing the same date and place of issue, and for a similar grade and net weight of grain as was shown on the cash purchase ticket aforesaid. Upon return of the said oash purchase ticket to the warehouseman, he shall at once issue to the holder in exchange therefor a warehouse storage receipt of the'same grade and quantity of grairt as shown on the face of said surrendered oash purchase ticket.
3.	That subsection three of section 197, preventing certain persons acting as agents to make application for oars, be repealed.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Will the minister please explain' the effect of these amendments-?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: The resolution really explains itself, although it takes many words for the purpose.
Mr. BURiEAJJ: The minister might point out the changes it contemplates.


George Green Foster: Section 1 provides that where a country elevator makes a purchase of, grain which is delivered in the elevator, or which is there for special storage that grain shall henceforth be paid for by certified cheque. Some considerable losses have accrued to the sellers of grain because cheques have been found not to have a requisite balance at the bank. When such payments are made up in future certified cheques shall be necessary. The second clause provides that where an elevator operator purchases grain which has been in storage in. special bins or otherwise in his elevator and gives the cash purchase ticket which is required, if on demand after twenty-four hours' notice he

does not redeem the cash purchase ticket, then the seller of the grain shall have the right to ask for a warehouse receipt for a quality of grain equal to that which was covered by the cash purchase ticket.


Mr. CAHILL:: What is the reason for the repeal of subsection 3 of section 197?


George Green Foster: I was not here when that clause slipped through but it was never contemplated that it should be passed. It is a provision incapacitating certain persons from acting as agents in connection with the application for cars, and it seems to have operated adversely. We therefore desire to repeal it. When the matter comes before the House in the Bill I shall explain it thoroughly.
-Mr. CAHILL: At whose request is this legislation regarding the marking of cheques being passed? 1 can understand that a great many elevators throughout the country would not have banks at those particular points.


George Green Foster: It arises out of the experience and the losses of certain years and has been demanded by the grain growers of the West whose request was placed before the Board of Grain Commissioners. The matter was thoroughly investigated and the Grain Commissioners recommended this legislation.


Mr. MYERS:: curred toy the operations of (this board. Then there is the question of whether the board is going to toe continued for the handling of this year's crop. Some think thalt the Grain Exchange should toe permitted Ito resume operations on the open market. If the Government act this year the way they did last year they will show very little stamina in regard Ito their policy. They allowed the Grain Exchange to open last year and to operate for about (two weeks and then they immediately -closed it. It would toe natter intereslting to kno w just Ithe position that some of the members of the Canadian Council of Agriculture are taking on this matter. We have press reports stating that the Canadian Council of Agriculture desire Ithe perpetuation of the Wheat Board. It would be rather interesting to know what position the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) takes on this question.


Mr. CRERAR:: What is your own position?


Edward Thomas Wordon Myers: I will tell you later, Sir.
At the -Cost of Living Committee of the House in the session of 1919, the Vice-President of the Grain 'Growers' Grain Company answered questions as follows:
<J. What is your attitude toward the Winnipeg Grain Echange? Do you think its operations are in -the interest of -the trade or the interest of the wheat industry?-A. You could not operate the grain business in Canada without the Grain Exchange.
Q. You therefore think it a necessity?-A. Yes.
It looks to me as if there was a divided House. Personally, I would like to see the Government announce its policy because there is such unrest throughout the country at Ithe present time and I think the announcement of a policy would quiet that unrest. If the Government is going to control wheat, why not conltrol other products?
'Sir GEORGE FOSTER: May I say to my hon. friend (Mr. Myers) that this resolution and the Bill to toe founded upon it have nothing Ito do with wheat or wheat control. I think my hon. friend will have an opportunity a little later to make the remarks that he may wish to make and to go inlto all these matters. His remarks are altogether foreign to this Bill.


Edward Thomas Wordon Myers: I said that possibly I might be out of order but as the House is nearing prorogation and we cannot get any definite information as to the policy of the Government I am simply taking this opport-un-

ity of bringing the question before the House.


George Green Foster: 1 will be glad to read the remarks made on the oilier points, fhat v ere brought up by the hon. member, I did not catch all he said but I will read his remarks as they appear in Hansard and will take them up when we come to the Bill itself.


Edward Thomas Wordon Myers: This matter has already been brought to the attention of the Depart-'ment of Trade and 'Commerce. It was referred back to the Department of Justice and then from the Department of Justice to the Board of Grain Commissioners and we simply cannot get a definite answer. It is a question of from pillar to post and from post to pillar.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Sir GEORGE FOSTER moved to introduce Bill Nb>. 194 to 'amend the Canada Grain Act.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



RETIREMENT OF MEMBERS OF PUBLIC SERVICE.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. CALDER (Minister of Immigration and 'Colonization) moved the second reading of Bill No. 120, to provide for the retirement of certain members of the public service.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is, I think, explained by the Bill itself. It is an Act to provide for the retirement of certain members of the public service. It will be remembered by the House that a somewhat similar measure was brought down by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) last year and, if I am not mistaken, it proceeded to the second reading and then was not advanced any farther, the reason being that upon consideration the Government finally decided that the provisions contained in the Bill of last session scarcely met the situation. Since then the problems involved have been re-considered with the result that the present measure is now before the House.
I am sure I need not refer at length to the conditions existing in the Civil Service. The matter has been one of discussion in this House ever since I have been here, and I presume for many years previously. There is not a member of the House who is not aware that there are defects in the Civil Service that should be remedied. I refer particularly to the over-manning, and also to the fact that there are a certain number in

the 'Civil Service of advanced age for whom no provision has been made for retirement simply because they do not comae under the existing Superannuation Acts. For these reasons the Government has thought it advisable to make some provisions whereby this problem may be dealt with, and that is the main object of this Bill. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether any particular party, or any particular Government, is chiefly responsible for the existing condition in the Civil Service. We simply know the condition exists, and my own idea is that all parties and all Governments-one might say ever since Confederation-are responsible for the system and the conditions that have grown up under it.
Now the problem of taking care of that situation and reasonably dealing with it, H must frankly say, in my judgment is a very difficult one, and I think it is because of this difficulty that all Governments in the past have hesitated to deal with it. One of the main difficulties is simply this: That the idea has prevailed to a very large extent that once a man gets into the service he is there for life. The idea prevails in Government circles, and in the 'Civil Service itself, that once appointed always appointed regardless of conditions that may grow up and regardless of whether or not the services of such men should be retained. Another phase of the difficulty has been this: That men have come into the service properly appointed, and have been in the service for long years. The time has arrived when they should be retired and there is no existing provision for their retirement in the way of any compensation, or allowance, or gratuity or annuity of any kind. For that reason all Governments have hesitated to retire these men from the service the result being that they remained there, regardless of their usefulness, practically until their decease. Well, we have come to the conclusion if Parliament will agree, that an attempt should be made to provide some measure whereby this condition can be remedied, and this Bill is submitted to the House for that purpose. The Government is not wedded to the details of the measure. We are anxious that there should be a full and free discussion of the details, and if suggestions can be made that will enable us to provide better means than is contained in this Bill for the purpose of taking hold of this problem I can assure the House the Government will welcome them. I would like to state briefly-because the Bill is not a very long one-what the chief
provisions are, in order that the House may grasp those clearly before we reach the committee stage.
In the first place the Bill provides that the Government may retire from the public service, either inside or outside, any employee whose services are not required, provision being made, however, in all cases for some allowance. The allowance in same cases may be very small, merely a gratuity; in other cases it may be an annuity as I shall explain later on. Let me state again, the Bill proposes to give the Government power to retire any officer in the Civil Service.
Mr. FIELDING:: Whatever his age?


Mr. CALDER:: Whatever his age. No matter how long he has been in the service, no matter what his work is, so long as it is finally decided that his services are not needed he shall be retired, but -provision is made in every case for some allowance- . what that allowance is we will see later on.
Mr. PABiDEE: Provision is made for some allowance no matter what length of time the employee has been in the service?


James Alexander Calder: No matter how long he has been in the service. In some cases the allowance is very small as I have just explained. In the second case this provision is made: In the case of officers over 65 years of age the Civil Service .Commission, after consultation with the deputy heads of the departments, are required to report to the Government those who are not rendering good and efficient services, and all such officers so reported shall be retired. Now that is very important.


William Stevens Fielding: Shall be retired?


James Alexander Calder: Shall be retired. The Bill provides that the Civil Service Commission, in consultation with the deputy heads of the departments shall consider the case of all officer's in all departments of the Government over 65 years of age, and if the commission certifies to the Government any officers who, in their judgment, are not rendering good and efficient service, then those officers shall be retired but they will get the allowances provided for by the Bill. In the case of all officers under 65 years of age the Civil Service Commission-when requested by the Governor in Council and after consultation with the deputies-shall prepare lists of all officers and employees in the entire service who should be retired owing to advancing age, ill health, lack of experience or other cause, and the Governor in Council may order their retire-

ment, as in the case of those over 65 years of age reported, as being unnecessary or unfit for further service.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the inside and the outside service?


James Alexander Calder: In the inside and outside service. In the case of those under 65 the Civil Service Commission shall make an examination, in consultation with the deputies, over the entire field, and they shall report to the Government those whom they think should be retired and the Government may act on that report. Now as regards the allowances.
service, he shall be entitled to thirty days' notice and one month's salary, or, if no notice is given, then to two months' salary. That is to apply to every person who is retired under the provisions of this Act. In the case of all persons under the age of 45 years, no matter how long they may have served, the Bill provides that if retired they shall not receive more than two months' salary.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Is tlhlere anv difference
between being retired for inefficiency or foe disability through illness?


James Alexander Calder: There is no difference.
Mr. MARCH, (Bonaventure): Some of these old employees were appointed previous to the abolition of the Superannuation Act; that is previous to 1896, what are you doing with them?


James Alexander Calder: The superannuation will not be interfered with; and if it is decided that they should be retired they will get either what they are entitled to under the Superannuation Act, if that is the larger sum, or they will get their superannuation allowance plus any amount that they would be entitled to under this Bill.


Mr. TWEEDIE:: With respect to an official, 66 years of age, who has been in the service of the country for 40 years, has he the right to retire voluntarily and demand the allowance that he would receive if he were removed from his position by the Government?


James Alexander Calder: No, he cannot retire voluntarily. If a man is only 66 years of age, and rendering efficient service, he cannot retire simply on his own will.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: 
James Alexander Calder: That is very largely true, but it is rather a question that I think we might consider when we come to the committee stage of the Bill.
Now in so far as the allowances provided are concerned. In the first place provision is made that in the case of every person who is retired, regardless of his age or length of


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: It is customary now to give a six months' retiring allowance.


James Alexander Calder: No. That may have been done in individual cases, but the general practice is two months' salary. In the next place it is proposed that any person over 45 years o|f age, even if he is, say, 60 years of age, who has rendered less than 5 years service, will receive only two months' salary. Persons retired between tflie ages of 45 and 50 years, with at least 5 years' service, will be entitled to one month's salary for every four years of service, not exceeding in the total four months' salary. Let me give an illustration of how that will work out. Presuming a man is 49 years of age and he has given 20 years' service; he would be entitled to one month's salary for each four years of service, or five months' salary, subject however, to the maximum. In addition, of course, he would get tfhe two months' salary I originally mentioned.


William Stevens Fielding: You are dealing with
four year terms. Would he get a proportionate amount for a lesser term?


James Alexander Calder: Yes. In the case of persons retired between the ages of 50 and 55 years, with at least 6 years' service, the allowance wo|uld be one month's salary for each two years' service. As an illustration, take the case of a man 52 years of age, who has given, we will say. 24 years' service: He would get one month's salary for each 2 years, in other words he would be'entitled to 12 months' salary. But~there is a limitation, that in the case of a man between these ages whd had served in that way the maximum allowance shall not exceed 6 months' salary, plus, of course, the 2 months.


Mr. BUREAU:: That is 50 per cent of his salary.


Mr. BELAND:: Oh, no.


James Alexander Calder: No; he would get 6
months' salary.


Jacques Bureau: And that is all?


James Alexander Calder: Yes, simply a gratuity.


Jacques Bureau: You had better make an appropriation for the poor -house in the same Bill.


James Alexander Calder: In the case ot persons retired between the ages of 55 and 60, yrith at least 5 years' service, the provision is that the lump sum allowance shall be 1 month's salary for each year of service with a maximum not exceeding 8 .months. In other wp/rds, if a man betwen those ages served fourteen years he would be entitled to one month's salary for each year of service, or 14 months' salary, except for the proviso that he is not to receive more than 8 months' salary. In the case of persons retired over the age of 60 years who lhave served at least 5 years hut- less than 10 years, the provision is the same as the last -those persons will be entitled to one month's salary for each year of service. All payments that I have referred to so far are lump sum payments.
As for persons retired over the age of 60 years, and who have seen at least ten years' service, the provision is tlhjat they shall be entitled for each year of service to one-sixtieth of the average salary they have received for the last 3 years. Under the old Superannuation Act the allowance was one-fiftieth with a maximum of thirty-five fiftieths if they served over 35 years. In this case pcrsotns over 60 years of age who have served more than 10 years will get an allowance of one-sixtieth with a maximum of thirty-sixtieths, or one-half of their salary and that is payable during their life.
This brief statement covers the provisions contained in this Bill. These allowances may be roughly divided into two classes. In the case of officers retired under the age of 60 years who have not seen 10 years' service provision is made for a lump sum gratuity running from 2 months up to 10 months' salary. In the case of officers over 60 years of age who have served for at least 10 years, provision is made for an annuity, the smallest amount payable being ten-sixtieths, or one-sixth of the average salary for the last 3 years, and the maximum amount allowed being thirty-sixtieths or one-half the salary paid for the last 3 years.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):: Will the minister allow me a question? The lump sum is said to be one-half but in the latter part of clause 3 there is a provision that:
In the case of an officer who is retired under the provisions of this Act on account of physical disability or protracted illness, the payments authorized by this subsection may be increased by the Governor in Council to any amount not exceeding twice the amount of such payments.
Does that mean that the Governor in Council may give the whole salary or not exceeding twice the amount of six months' salary.


James Alexander Calder: No.


Mr. SPEAKER:: If the hon. minister
chooses to answer the question of the hon. member-and I hope he may-well and good. But I wish to direct the attention of the House to the rule that in a debate on the second reading of a Bill only the principle can be discussed and questions of detail must be left to be dealt with in Committee of the Whole.


John Howard Sinclair: I obtained the permission of the minister, Mr. Speaker, before putting my question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes; I had that in mind.


James Alexander Calder: In reference to the point raised by the hon. member for Guysborough, the proviso to which he has referred applies only to those officials under 60 years of age who would be entitled under the Bill to a lump sum gratuity. If upon the joint certificate of the Civil Service Commission and the deputy head of a department it is reported that an officer who is retired by reason of physical disability or protracted illness should receive more than the lump sum gratuity provided by the Bill then the Government may pay an additional amount, not exceeding twice the sum provided for. But that is applicable only to persons retired who are entitled to a lump sum gratuity, not to those who are retired and are entitled to an annuity.
These are, briefly, the main provisions of the Bill. I am aware that there will be differences of opinon as to the provision that will be made to meet this situation; that members on both sides will have divergent views on the subject. However, I hope that as a result of our discussions some means will be arrived at of enabling the Government to deal with the problem. I am sure hon. members will agree that the condition in the service to which I have referred should not be allowed to continue. If it is thought that the provisions here made are not ample or are over-ample, any suggestions made in that regard will be welcomed by the Government. Last year the member

for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) expressed regret that the old superannuation law had been abolished; he thought that the situation to-day would be easier for everybody if that law had been continued in force. Personally, at the next session of Parliament I should like to see a proper Superannuation Bill brought down and enacted into law in order that the situation that has arisen as a result of what has taken place during the last fifteen, twenty, or thirty years may be dealt with. But the condition is bound to continue and to become intensified unless a proper superannuation law is provided. I move, Mr. Speaker, the second reading of the Bill.


Jacques Bureau: Mr. Speaker, before the Bill is read the second time I should like to say a word or two. T have not taken occasion to study the Bill closely, because II did not think it would be pressed now that the session is drawing to an end. The'Bill is a very important one, affecting the future of a good many men and women who have devoted their lives to the service of the country. As I understand it, under the provisions of this Bill, after a civil servant has put in so many years' service, he is paid a lump sum based on his salary during a number of months and the length of time he has served, and then he is out. Mr. Speaker, it is with civil servants as with railwaymen; after they have served for twenty, twenty-five or thirty years in some line of Government work; after they have continued this length of time in one groove or followed a routine line of work, they are not in a position to take up any other line of business and fight their -way through. They are used to this work and they cannot familiarize themselves with or break themselves into new work. Under the provisions of this Bill men and women will be thrown on the street without any means of starting anew in order to earn a living. Under the circumstances this Bill ought to be referred to a committee or to some commission, with instructions to investigate the conditions and report upon what course should be adopted to protect these people. I admit, with the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder) that there are men in the service who are unable to perform their duties or to give to the country the service expected from them o.t the service that they ought to give. I admit that these persons should not be there; but sometimes it is not the fault of the civil servant that that is the case. I know from experience that as a per-

son advances in age he finds himself less able to render service, less capable of doing efficient work, than .he was when he was younger. But if his younger years have been devoted to this particular service, there ought to be some recognition of that service; he should be taken care of. Take the case of a man who has raised a family. If he has to withdraw when he is sixty years of age with, say, $1,000 or $1,200-


James Alexander Calder: The hon. gentleman will allow me? He is arguing on the assumption that in all cases only a lump sum gratuity is granted. That is not so.


Jacques Bureau: Over sixty?


James Alexander Calder: Those over sixty who have served more than ten years are entitled to an annuity based upon one-sixtieth of the average -salary of the last three years, for each year of service.


William Stevens Fielding: Besides the lump sum?


James Alexander Calder: Oh, no; not besides the lump sum. Assume that a -man who is over sixty has been in the service for twenty-four years; he would be entitled to an annual payment for life of an amount equal to twenty-four -sixtieths of his salary for the last three years. Just one further word. Under the old Superannuation Act a man who had paid in his three per cent or his two and one-half per cent, as the case may be, would be entitled to only 3 p.m. one-fiftieth, notwithstanding the fact that he has been paying all these years. We did not consider it fair that the man who had never so contributed should be placed upon as favourable a'basis as the man who has contributed during all this time; consequently we provide that the man over sixty and now retiring who has not so contributed -shall be entitled to only one-sixtieth of his average salary for each year of -service, instead of one-fiftieth.


Jacques Bureau: A man over sixty who was retired from the service would not be a big charge on .the community, because his lease [DOT] of life is not very long, especially if he has been locked up in an office all the time and has not been able to get much exercise -although it is charged against Civil Servants that they do not over-exert themselves.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Where does the hon. gentleman get the idea that these people are serving their country? They are earning money the same as anybody else.


Jacques Bureau: Does my -hon. friend not think that we are serving our country when we are sitting here?


John Hampden Burnham: No.


Jacques Bureau: Well, a man who does not think he is serving his country when he is sitting here ought to tell that to his constituents and stay at home; that is my private opinion. If my hon. friend says that a man who comes here, abandoning his business, does so chiefly for the purpose of picking up his indemnity or of blowing in-


John Hampden Burnham: When my hon. friend sits down, I will reply to him.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Jacques Bureau: Very good. In the meantime, we will talk about the Superannuation Bill, and my hon. friend (Mr., Burnham) may serve his neighbours and serve himself and forget his country when he sits in the House.
I was going to say that a man over sixty gets a small annuity, whereas a man who is fiftymine gets not an annuity, but ten months salary in a lump sum, and he is out. Well, there is not much difference between the man who is fifty-nine and the if5an who is sixty; one is no better able to go into the world and earn his living than the other. As I have said, those who have spent their lives in the service cannot easily break themselves into another kind of work; they cannot readily enter another calling and make a success of it. Moreover, the small amount which is given to the man when he leaves the service is not sufficient to enable him to start up even a little business for himself. When my hon. friend (Mr. Burnham) rose to express his indignation that I should impute to civil servants the motive of trying to serve their country, I was going to point out that it is humiliating the men who have worked as civil servants all their lives-(I shall not hurt the feelings of my hon. friend (Mr. Burnham) by saying that they have served their country)-and who have spent all their earnings in the education of their children and the bringing up of their families, should upon retirement not be given enough to keep them in daily bread for the remainder of their days. I say it is humiliating; it is a condition that ought not to exist. We are very optimistic in everything that concerns our country. We are willing to take care of the people who inhabit our country. We have great resources; we are not afraid of the future. Are we to invite people to enter the Civil Service and tell them that when they reach a certain age and are not able any longer to render efficient service-because it is true that you cannot get the same service out of a man
who is well advanced in age that you were able to get in his earlier years,-upon the report of the proper officer they are to be dismissed with absolutely nothing to protect them in life.
Under the circuipstances II think this Bill should at least be considered further and that a commission of some kind should 'be appointed to go into the details and recommend what they thought was the best way to provide for these civil servants getting up in years, so that they would not be thrown out of employment with no provision made for their old age. I have no criticism to offer as to the necessity for some legislation of this kind, because I know that something must toe done. You cannot keep these people in the service until they die. There is a certain age at which they ought to be retired. But I submit that they should toe retired in such a way that life from the time of their retirement until their death will not toe a misery and a curse.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: Mr. Speaker, I agree to a very large extent with the statements made by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), but I think this is a matter which the 'Government of this country should take hold of at once. In my opinion the situation can best be dealt with by a pension scheme. The provision made toy this Bill for a man sixty years or over seems to toe reasonably fair, but I think it is rather unfair to say to a man of fifty years of age and from that up till sixty : We will dispense with your services on the payment of a certain sum of money. I understand from what the minister says that they will toe dispensed with only on the ground of incapacity to perform their duties or inefficiency. I take it that any man who might be discharged for insubordination or neglect of his duty will not be entitled to receive any money under this Bill -whatever. I think the Bill is a step in the right direction, but in my opinion it does not go far enough. The only way this question can be dealt with is for the Government of this country to establish a pension scheme for the whole Civil Service. If we want to raise the standard of efficiency of the Civil Service of this country, the Government should hold out to them some inducement in connection with the performance of their duty that they will be taken care of in their old age. The tendency of modern business is to make some provision for its employees of all classes', whether they toe engaged in menial work or something higher, that they may have some hope of reward when they

attain that age in life when they are not able to provide for themselves. There are some outstanding cases in this country so far as the widows of civil servants are concerned, which are an absolute disgrace to the Dominion of Canada. AH over this country I could point to cases of men who have served this country for forty or fifty years, but who were not able when they died to leave one single cent to those they left behind. Widows of perahps sixty or seventy years of age and more have been left practically penniless. I say it is the duty of this Government to provide for these families just as much as it is the duty of the civil servants themselves. If this Bill goes through this session, which I trust it will, I hope that the suggestion of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder), that a comprehensive pension scheme will be introduced into this House next session, will be carried out, and that our civil servants will be taken care of by this Government just as well as they would be by private concerns.
Mr. JOHN H. BURNHAM (West Peterborough) :	Unless all the old people of this
country are pensioned, no class has a right to a pension. It is an absurdity to say that a man who enters the Civil Service by passing an examination, and who is anxious to get into the service and considers himself lucky when he does get into it, should be held up as a patriotic citizen who has served his country just as much as if he were a soldier at the front and were making some sacrifice. If he does not want the job, let him get out. Nobody supposes that the Civil Service is composed of men who are brought in by a press gang. I never heard anything like it in my life. These men who have fine salaries, and who have organized themselves into associations which hold up the Government every little while in order that their salaries .may be sufficient, are now held up as martyrs, while the really poor people of this country who have enjoyed no such advantages and no such salaries are allowed to look after themselves the best way they can. The thing is simply preposterous. It is indefensible, and I venture to say that if any such scheme as this is propounded to the country, the country will kick it into the middle of next week. It is contrary to all the ideas of labour; it is contrary to all the ideas of any just and reflecting man. Anybody who has the ideas also that members of Parliament come here for the purpose of simply serving their country had
[Hr. Tweenic. j
better look at the members of Parliament working their heads off to get the job. There is no self-sacrifice about it. They can step out any minute they like. Let us consider this thing on its merits, and not in any assumed hysterical way. These people want the job. It is a common question of hiring. Pay them decently, and let them put by something for themselves. If they wish to make provision for old age by contributions to a retirement fund, well and good, but as to this country paying them something by way of an admiration allowance at the finish, after they have spent, in extravagant living all that they received, because that is what it would amount to, to my mind it is simply preposterous and I protest against it.
iHon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queens): If the principle of this Bill is to make provision for the retirement for the aged members of the civil service' and in some cases of those who, though perhaps not aged, are not efficient, I am quite prepared to endorse that principle and commend the Government for its adoption. But I notice that the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder) speaks of this as a temporary measure and expresses the hope that we will have another Bill next session. Why next session? This is not a new question. It has been before the Government and before Parliament for a number of years. Why is it in the last hours of the session we are asked to pass a temporary measure in the hope that we may have another Bill next session?
Mr. OAiLDER:	If my hon. friend will
allow me just a moment,-under this Bill there will be retired many civil servants who have not contributed towards any pension or superannuation fund. It seems to me that any proper superannuation measure must provide that the civil servants themselves shall contribute, but as I say, we have in the service many who have not contributed, and it seems to me we must have some half-way measure that will partially, at least, meet the situation.
\


William Stevens Fielding: Not a half-way measure, but have two halves of the same measure. It does not follow that we must have two Bills. I agree that a superannuation system should include contributions by the civil servants. I am not going to oppose this Bill, as I think its purpose is a good one, but I think that the Government with all the time they have had-and, I am not suggesting that they have not been

busy with other matters, but this question has been a live one for a number of years -should have brought down a comprehensive scheme for the whole service. I think a mistake was made, and I am responsible, as other ministers were, when the old superannuation system was abolished years ago. I quite agree, though perhaps my colleagues would not, that we made a mistake then, and I would like to correct it. I think the Government, with all the time this matter has been before Parliament, should have brought down a mature measure not a temporary one. I desire to support this Bill, but I do not think it is dealing with the question in the broad way it should be dealt with. As to the general question of superannuation and an allowance for the older officials, I find myself very largely in accord with what has been said by my hon. friend for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) and my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Tweedie).	,


Hon. T. W. CROTHBRS (West Elgin):: I did not expect this Bill would be brought before the House so soon. However, as my hon. friend from IShelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) has said, it is a matter that has been discussed for many years. Under your ruling, Mr. Speaker, the discussion at this stage must he confined to the principle of the Bill; we cannot go into its details. I want to say that as ito the principle I agree very much with w'hat my hon. friend from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) has said. I am utterly opposed to the principle of this Bill, and I believe the great majority of the people of this country are also opposed to it. Let me give one or two reasons. We are facing a difficult situation just now because years ago proper provision was not made by Parliament. I think it is in the interests of the public that when a man reaches that stage where he is not efficient, some provision should be made in order that he may retire and not be destitute during the rest of his life. But the provision should be made by himself out of his own wages or salary, during his twenty-five, thirty, or forty years of service, just as you or I have to do. I do not take any stock whatever in the statement that A, B, C, and D have given their services to the country for twenty-five, thirty or forty years. I do. not know any one who has given his services to the country. There may be some, but I do not know of them. There are a good many, I have no doubt, iwho could earn ia great deal more money if they were not in the public service; bat there are other motives than money that 243
actuate men in getting into the public service. Now, why should men who are being ipaid while they do their work-who are being paid, generally speaking, more while they are in the public service than they could earn anywhere else in the world- when they reach the age of sixty-five be put upon the country for the rest of their lives? Who has given his services to the country for twenty-five or thirty or forty years? Nobody. Public servants are being paid, and paid better than they would be anywhere else in the world. I say, there are some exceptions, hut there are very few, compared with the number in the service. What happens when a vacancy of any account occurs? Why, men are falling over one another to secure the position. What is the reason? It is because they know very well that they would be better treated in the Civil Service than anywhere else in the world, not only as regards salary, but in many other respects. Civil servants, for instance, have twelve statutory holidays in the year. They have twenty-one .more days for 'their annual outing,-three .weeks. Three weeks used to mean eighteen .working days, but they discovered that they wanted twenty-one working days and that was yielded to them, so that they have twenty-one and twelve, or thirty-three days out of the year. 'Then they have every Saturday lafternoon the whole year round, which means twenty-six more days. Then if a civil servant is -siiick for two months or six months or a .year or two years in some cases he is paid full Salary; or if his wife is sick, or his daughter, his .father or his mother he is excused from (duty and his pay goes on. These are perquisites of value, and the civil servant enjoys them while others do not, ait least not ,to SO' large an extent. As I said 'a few .weeks ago, by way of illustration, two .young men come to Ottawa from the same .little town. They are about equal in ability .and in education, and one goes into the .Civil Service while the other enters a .private concern. The one in the private concern has to provide for himself and his family for old age and a rainy day. After having served in a private capacity for ten or fifteen or twenty years he receives no pension or superannuation; that is, generally .speaking, for .some of 'the large corporations provide retiring allowances. The other man goes into the Civil Service and .after hie ten or fifteen or twenty years of service he gets a pension. His fellow man ,has ,to provide fofr bis family himself; and after the civil servant has been in the



jpublic service for this length of time he has to help him provide for his family. Is *that fair or just?
. I quite understand 'that without some .provision oif this kind you twill find some civil servants, perhaps through no>
fault of their own, through some misfortune ot illness or ibeeause of extravagant families, /who. find themselves at the age of sixty-five or seventy years unable to do efficiently .the work assigned to them. Well, no one could find in his heart any desire to turn put on the street a man in such circumstances. Yon cannot do that, and the result is that he is kept on after he has become inefficient. I fully agree that some provision should be made for a man, when *he reaches that age and state, to retire. .But how should that provision toe made?- .By the people of the country or toy the man him self?
There is nothing in this country that we Jack so. much to-day as seM-reliance. Give .a man in the Civil Service a salary sufficient to. enable hlim to provide for old age toy way of some sort of life insurance. The .Government might retain a certain .percentage of his salary and invest it so that .when he reached 'the age oif seventy the money which his own self-reliance provided would enable the Government to pay .him, according to his state ih life, a reasonable sum so that himself and his family plight live in comparative comfort. He .would then know that he was supplying that money himself.
Among the many repulsive words in the English language these two "tip" and "pension" I dislike the most. Why? Because they have a degrading effect upon the man who is looking for the things they signify. Every time a man holds out his hand for a tip or something that he has not earned, a little bit of his manhood oozes out of his finger ends. Let these men, I say, provide for old age themselves. Give them a salary to. enable them to do so, as others have to do, and you encourage thrift amongst them. What does the man say who expects superannuation. Why, he says, "I can spend every cent I earn because the people of the country are going to keep me in the future. I am going on the country when I reach a certain age and the people will keep me." That does not encourage thrift; on the contrary it fosters extravagance and the opposite of thrift. Thrift, like self-reliance, is lacking to a large extent in this country today. We find all classes of people coming to the Government for something; they want something from the Government. Self-
IMr. Crothers.f
reliance is indispensable; but instead of thrift and self-reliance we have extravagance. Sir, thrift has come to be regarded as a vice in this country. Having regard to our comparatively small population and our comparatively small accumulation of wealth, I think we are the most extravagant and wasteful people on the face of the earth.
Mr. LElMIEUX: What about the Government?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not confine this statement to any particular class. Now, Sir, how should we deal with these men? There are some men who. have not contributed anything, and something would have to be done for them. But I think we should at once prepare for the future under a system which would enable the Government to retain from the civil servant's salary a certain necessary percentage. Give him-I want to repeat this-a sufficient salary to enable him to provide for old age, and let the Government retain out of that salary sufficient to enable it to provide for his retirement when he reaches whatever age is thought desirable as the limit.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 'Compulsory insurance,
for instance?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Give him such a salary, and retain such a percentage of it as will enable him in old age to maintain himself for the rest of his life.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Compulsory insurance.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes, that would be
compulsory insurance. You encourage thrift and self-reliance thereby; you encourage a man to feel that be is a man, that he is paying his own way, that he is not depending upon the people of this country to maintain him in old age. I am strongly opposed toj the principle of this Bill, I believe my constituents are opposed to it, I believe the country at large is opposed to it, and I desire to oppose it with whatever little influence I may have. When it comes before the committee we will have an opportunity of discussing it in detail.
There is one subclause that I would like to call attention to because it proposes to superannuate a man who never was capable of filling the position that he held. Subsection 2 of section 2 provides that:
The Civil Service Commission shall, when requested by the Governor in Council and after consultation with the deiputy heads, prepare and submit to the Governor in Council for ap' proval of the names of all officers-

Fifty thousand civil servants from, one end of this country to the other 

who, being under sixty-five years of age-[DOT]
A man may be only thirty.
-and by reason of advancing age-
There must be something wrong' about that because the first part of the clause applies no matter what his age is.
-failing health, physical disability, lack of experience or ability-
He never had ability, he had no ability when he was appointed to the Civil Service.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is not necessary.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: My hon. friend says it is not necessary. I am sorry to say that has often been the case in the past. But he has no ability and under this section he may be only twentydive or thirty years of age.
-lack of experience or ability or other cause are incapable of rendering or do not render efficient service.
Never was capable, never had ability, only thirty years of age, getting more here than he could earn anywhere else in the world and then you put him on the country for the rest of his life. My constituents do not approve of that, and I desire to support them as strongly as I can in that position. The only way to provide for the retirement of those men who have become inefficient by old age is to provide for them on money contributed by themselves so as to maintain their own self-reliance and self-respect.


James Alexander Calder: My hon. friend must remember-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member (Mr. Calder). has spoken twice and he has not under the rules the right to reply at this stage.


Charles Marcil: The principle enunciated by the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) may be admirable in its application to the future but what is he going to do with the man who will be turned out to-morrow because he is over age?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I have already referred to that. It is a difficulty that we have nolt yet (had time to consider, and I do not think we will have time to consider it during the balance of this session.


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford) :: Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal to be .said, I think, from the points of view of my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), and 243i
my hon. friend from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) and my hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Crothers). On reading the Bill it will be seen that the proposition, in most cases, is to give a man two months' salary when you discharge him. I doubt if there are many people in this House who, if they were dealing with their own employees privately, would not be willing to give them two months' salary when they discharged them because they did not need them. Where he has worked faithfully for ten, fifteen, twenty or thirty years, whethjer he has been serving his country to the best advantage or not, the tendency of the world at the present time is to give that man something to live on after he is unable to wqfrk for himself. That apparently is the proposal of fihfe Bill. I think the Government have really found a middle course between the views of the hon. member for Thjree Rivers and those of the hon. members for West Peterborough and West Elgin. Therefore I hope we will go into committee, consider the Bill clause by clause and do what is absolutely just and reasonable not only between man and man but between employer and servant.


John Howard Sinclair: Mi. Speaker I sympathize very strongly with the views expressed by the hon. member for West Elgin in reference to this matter. I do not see that there is any good reason why we should retire and provide for incapable men who have been but a short time in the public service. It is unreasonable that we should be asked to do that. We must be continuing to appoint incapable men. The Bill infers that we have such men in the public service. We know that during the last year or two complaints have been made by those at the head of departments that the men who are sent to them by the Civil Service Commission are incapable. We had the case of Commander Ross who could not carry on his work in the Pensions Department with the. staff that he had sent to him and he resigned. He himself was a good man, willing to do his best for the public but he found it necessary to give up his position altogether and resign from the public service because the men who were sent to him by the Civil Service Commission were incapable of doing the work. That appears to be the position. We are appointing people to the public service so fast that they have become so numerous that the matter looks hopeless to me. According to a statement made in the House this ses-

sion, we have appointed 25,000 men since the Armistice but that figure was revised by the hon. the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) and he said that only 12,000 of the 25,000 were still on the pay roll of the Government. That is about 660 every month since the Armistice and it is going at a pretty good rate. If a large proportion of those people that we are appointing are incapable of doing the work, and we make provision for retiring them without their contributing anything to the retirement fund, I must be allowed to place myself , on record against the principle of this Bill. I do not think it is necessary to make any long speech about it but I want it to be understood that I do not think the principle of the Bill is sound. I think we should wait until a Bill can be brought in that can provide for these people making some contribution out of their salaries for retirement. That is the only sound principle. If we are going to deal with this question at all, let us deal with it on business principles. There is no commercial company in the country-I suppose there is none in the world-that would do what we are doing today. If the bank employs a man and it finds that he is incapable of discharging his duty it lets him go but if it decides to.-keep him for a number of years in its employment it sees that he pays a certain *amount into the fund to provide for his retirement. That is a good system, but it is not the system we are adopting. We are appointing men and women for the public service at the rate of 660 a month many of whom are incapable, and we are now providing that the country shall take charge of them when they are retired.


Mr. MICHAEL STEELE (Perth South):: 
Thomas Alexander Crerar: The
purpose of the Bill is one that I entirely sympathize with. It appears to be an effort on the part of the Government to care-or rather to give a measure of care-for inefficient and incapable public servants who may have been in the service for some time past and whom it now seeks to discharge. I think we perhaps may do these people who have been in the service of the country an injustice-I Tather think that in soime respects an injustice has been done to them today in the remarks that have been made by some hon. gentlemen. One of the evils of the patronage system in the past in Government appointments in this country has been to place in our Civil Service many inefficient, people, and that has happened far the last forty ye irs. Consequently we have in the Government service to this day men and women who secured their positions as a re-

suit of political pull or influence perhaps 25 or 30, or even 35 years ago, and have remained in the service ever since. Now it is all right to say that they should be turned adrift without anything in the way of pension or assistance at the time they sever their connection with the public service, but II think there is an obligation resting upon the country and upon the Government to give a measure of care to them. If I have any -criticism to offer it is along the line of that of my 'hon. friend from South Perth (Mr. Steele), that the Government might very well have been a little more generous in dealing with those classes that are referred to in these clauses. Now I take it, this legislation is not directed to the end of working out a permanent pension system. I believe in a permanent pension system, Mr. Speaker, in the public service, and I believe in it because it will pay the country to have it. I differ in that regard from my hon. friend from Elgin (Mr. Crothers). We find to-day that the most successful business corporations who employ large numbers of men are adopting a pension system. True, it may be in different forms, but nevertheless they are adopting the principle of the pension system. And why are they doing it? They frankly pult it on a basis of service-on the basis of dollars and cents if you like-for their business. There is nothing so harrassing to the person living on a small salary as the *f.ear of want in his old age, and I can conceive of this:	That a public employee
whose mind is troubled with such thoughts canndt bring an entirely clear head and clear judgment to bear on the duties he is discharging day by day. If you can assure him against the fear of want in old age, you are creating an atmosphere for him to work in, which wall result in his rendering more efficient service than he otherwise would; and consequently upon the basis of utility alone I think the principle of a pension in the public service-a principle which, as I say, large industrial corporations are adopting-can be defended and justified.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: If the hon. member remembers accurately what I said he will recall thalt I spoke in favour of the employee providing for old age, for the man himself out of his own money providing for old age, and the Government paying him sufficient salary to enable him to do so.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend and I are travelling in the same diredtion to some extent:	The principle I think is a sound
principle; hut the matter should only be settled after full inquiry into ilt. It does appear to me that a principle that might well be adopted in the case of a permanent pension fund is (that whereby the employees and the Government both contribute to the creation of the fund. Certainly I am at one with my hon. friend from Elgin in the view that the employees should contribute to such a fund, and I think the Government might also very well add something to it. That pension should only come after a long period of service. We then could operate on this basis: That only efficient people should be taken into the public service and kept there. Then with such pension system, as the case may be where your public servant could look forward on retiring from the public service at the end of 25 or 30 or 35 years to something thalt will guard him against want in his old age, you have to my mind the conditions that will bring efficiency in the highest degree to your public service.
I have another criticism to make in respect to this matter and it is this: I am inclined to think, Mr. Speaker, that we are giving too much power to the Civil Service Commission in the matter of the administration of the public services. Now I am for a Civil Service Commission; I do not want to be misunderstood in that regard. I am free, however, to say this: That if I were again undertaking to administer a department of the Government I have sufficient conceit in myself to imagine that I could probably administer my department better without the aid of a Civil Service Commission. Still, I recognize that a department of the Government is different from an ordinary [DOT] business in many respects, and consequently that it is necessary and highly necessary, to have your Civil Service Commission. Nevertheless it is a mistake, in my judgment, to hamper the control of the staff of a department through the operation of the commission. After all, if you have men of sound judgment and ability at the head of your various branches of a department these men- who are in daily contact with the staff under them-in my judgment are best informed as to their efficiency and ability; and when you take the matter of controlling the staff largely out of their hands and give it into the control of the Civil Service Commission then you are creaking a condition of affairs that does not make for good discipline or efficiency in your departments. I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that on this point I may be trespassing some-

what beyond the bounds of this Bill, but the whole matter is relalted, and I am inclined to think that pe'rhaps we have erred a lifttle in charging the Civil Service Commission with too much responsibility in the control of the staff of our various departments.


Mr. ROBB:: In 1912 the Government obtained the services of Sir George Murray, a British expert of long standing and knowledge of civil service matters, and he made a report on the reorganization of the service. This report, like many others, was pigeon-holed. In 1918 Parliament gave authority to the Civil Service Commission to deal with this matter, and I think they engaged the firm of Arthur Young & Company of Chicago. That firm also made a report. Is the minister in introducing this Bill guided by the report of Sir George Murray, or by the report of Arthur Young & Company of Chicago?


Rodolphe Lemieux: He is guided by 'Chicago, of course.
Mr. MeKENZIE: We have not the necessary information to deal with the subject matter of this Bill just now, and I do not think we should agree to its passing. It is not a light matter to turn people out on the street when they cannot support themselves and their families, and it is better that the country should bear some losses than that any such action should be taken. If we have not heretofore taken proper precaution in engaging our civil servants so as to make them provide for their old age, that is not altogether their fault; it is to a very great extent our fault. We have created the system, and thousands of people have become victims under it. We must not get wise all at once and cut off their heads. As it was necessary to have a committee last year and this year to deal with soldiers' pensions, I think in a lesser degree it is necessary that we should have the most thorough investigation into the steps which we are about to take. We should know from every department the number of men and women who must be retired, what it is likely to cost, and full details of the working out of an Act of this kind. I certainly think that this business should be dealt with as a comprehensive whole rather than piecemeal. I do think that this is too hasty a move. Apparently the minister did not have the necessary time to fully consider the working out of the proposals contained in this Bill, for he cannot tell the House what it is going to cost nor how many people will be affected.

It seems to me that the minister is not providing for the necessary machinery to inquire into who shall be retired and who shall be retained. We have the experience already that, good men as are the Civil Service Commissioners, they do not seem to have courage to do anything. Last year it was up to them to act on the classification made by their experts, and it was acknowledged on the floor of the House that the commission refused to take the responsibility of putting that classification into effect. To use a vulgar term, "They got cold feet," and declined to take action. I would not care to leave a question of this kind to be dealt with by that commission. I would prefer to see such a question referred to a capable tribunal of one, two or three men so that absolute justice might be done. I do not think the Governor in Council should have anything to do with a matter of this kind, because political influence would be at once exerted,-and I am sure that the kindly disposition of the minister who is introducing this Bill would render it very hard for him to pass judgment on old members of the service and so force them on the streets in a penniless condition.
I would advise the minister to let this Bill stand over until next session. During the recess he could appoint a commission, if he likes,-although we are tired of commissions-to go fully into this question so that their conclusions may be placed before us next session and we will be in a better position to take whatever action may be taken.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for iChateauguay (Mr. Robb) has referred to two commissions that have been dealing with the 'Civil Service; the commission of which Sir George Murray was chairman, and the commission recently appointed by the Government to reorganize some of the branches of the service. On looking at the Order in Council appointing the gentlemen who are to go over the service for the second or third time, it would seem as though their work would be more or lees identical with the work of the Civil Service CoanimissAon in xeiclassifying the service under the Bill now before us.
The Order in Council appointing the firm of Griffenhagen & 'Company-the members of which firm were formerly associated with Arthur Young & Company-contains a .section which seems to parallel the .authority given. itShie Civil Service Commission. This is the 'section I refer Ito :
The committeethat is the Committee of Council.

-after careful consideration is of the opinion that a very substantial saving, together with more efficient and orderly work, would result from the reorganization of Government departments on the lines pursued by that Company. They are of opinion that the services of Griffenhagen and Associates, Limited, should' be retained and that the reorganization of the departments at Ottawa should be proceeded' with, taking up for a commencement the two Departments of Post Office and Customs, the former of which has some 24,000 employees and the latter some 4,000 odd.
I hope when the minister replies he will kindly explain to the House the relationship of these two bodies: The Griffenhagen Company in dealing with the Post Office, Customs and other departments, with a view to "more efficient and orderly work resulting"; and the Civil Service Commission in passing upon what employees shall be retired. Assuming there should be a conflict of opinion between these two bodies, who is to decide? Does it not open the door to confusion rather than- to co-.ordination of effort?


Mr. T. HAY (Selkirk):: I wish to say
that I 'think it is a very good temporary measure. The different departments find themselves overloaded with old employees, in many cases incapable and inefficient employees, and the purpose of the Bill is to clean up the different departments. This proposed legislation will, to some extent, do that; therefore, I am in favour of the Bill.
I would like to place myself on record as regards pensions. I quite agree with the remarks made by the ex-MinisteT of Labour (Mr. Crothers) in that regard. I believe that some system of pensions for civil servants should be worked out, but in my opinion such a system should be carried by the civil servants themselves. As the minister has said, a system of pensions which is carried exclusively 'by the country has a tendency to create extravagance, and to some extent, inefficiency in the service.
I quite agree with what the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) has said regarding civil servants and the Civil Service Commission. I think that we are allowing that commission to go too far in managing the affairs of the different departments of Government, and that a curb should be placed upon them. The present system does not make for efficiency in any respect. My experience in matters connected with public works in my constituency leads me to the conclusion that the present system results in inefficiency in all branches of the service. As a result of the present procedure on the part of the Civil Service Commission in advertising for men we are getting a class of men who are not capable of properly doing the work required of them. They seem to be responsible to nobody; the men in charge have no way of getting rid of them; they do just about as they please. Something should be done to give the heads of the dif-< ferent departments, superintendents and others, some authority over the men as respects the way they do their work and the kind of service they render. I have recently received a letter from a -man connected with the work of one of the departments in my county, and he says that is the way it works out in his department; he finds that the present system makes for inefficiency. We are not getting sufficient return for the money expended in these departments. Something should be done to remedy the state of affairs. I simply desired to place myself on record with regard to these matters and to state that I am in sympathy with the Bill which is now before the House for second reading.


James Alexander Calder: Just a word or two.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: It is my duty to inform hon. members that the minister ,iis 'about fta exercise his tight to reply iamd to close the debate. If any other hon. member desires to speak, he should do so now.


James Alexander Calder: Mr. 'Speaker, I merely wish to touch upon one or two points raised during the course of the discussion.
The member for East Elgin (Mr. Crothers) and, if I mistake not, the member for 'Guys-borough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) contended that under the Bill we contemplated providing that young men twenty-five, thirty or thirty-five years of age who had served the country for a very short period might retire and receive an annuity for life. Well, there is no such provision in the Bill. As I explained 'quite clearly in my opening remarks, in the case of all men under the age of sixty years who retire after serving five years, all that we give is a lump sum gratuity.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Where d'o you find that in the Bill?


James Alexander Calder: It is in the Bill; we will come to it when we get to the committee stage. The amount paid varies from two months' to ten months' salary, the latter being the maximum amount allowed. Every Government at Ottawa since Confederation has provided a retiring allowance to men

who leave the service. I know that during the last two or three years, while 4 p.on. I have been here, no person has retired) from the service without being granted at least two months' salary; that seems to be an established practice. Well, as I explained, in the case of all men under the age of fortynfive years who are retired, all we do is to continue what has been the practice for I do not know how long-in other words, any man retiring under this measure who is not over forty-five years of age cannot receive more than two months' salary. So that when hon. gentlemen picture to the House and endeavour to picture to the country our granting an annuity for life to young men who have served only a few years-well, that is not the provision of the Bill at all.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I do not agree with the minister.


James Alexander Calder: We will see about that yvhen we get to the committee stage. A second point was made by some hon. gentlemen to the effect that :we might as well tet this matter stand; that we might 'as wdll wait until we bring down a proper superannuation laiw, in order that these pren may contribute. Well, we are beyond ,that -stage. These men are in the service; .they are ready for retirement; they should be retired. What is the use of waiting? 'These men aire not going to contribute anything in the future; they are beyond that p'tage. The situation, therefore, is one which -must be dealt with now.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Is there anything in ,this Bill to- indicate that it does not include persons appointed hereafter? Does it not include everybody?


James Alexander Calder: But they would not be entitled to- anything until they had served over five years.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It Is not confined to tho-se who are in the service now?
, Mr. CALDER: Oh, yes.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Where do you find that?


James Alexander Calder: We will deal with that detail when we come 'to the committee stage. Inquiry was m-a-de some months ago as to the number o-f men- in the service over sixty-five years of age who .should really he retired. I have not the list -here, but I made a list of some forty-three of those. I have not the-ir names. The average age of these. foTty-tbree 'is 70.39 years; average

length o-f service, 27.83 years; average salary ifor the last three years, $1,924. The total salaries now paid to- these forty-three employees is $84,900, and if they retired under the provisions of th'iis Bill they would be entitled to annuities amounting in the aggregate to $40,670. Well, now, if the rBous-e does no-t wish to agree to the Bill; if the Government is not to- be placed in a position to deal -with thi-s situation, th-eTe is a. very easy cours-e 'to. follow,-that is, ,to. let things stand just '-where they are. In other worths, we ca-n continue these ;nen in the service an-d pay them a total oif $84,900 -a year, although they -are not rendering one dollar's -worth of .service to the country. These imen are all -ready for retirement; most of them wish to be retired; they are not giving any service. If, ,1 say, the -House does not agree- to our making s-ome -provision under which we pan take care o-f these people, w-e can pimply do nothing; we can -continue to pay them -at their present rate of salary until they die. I do- no-t think .that is wh-at this House w.an-ts and I do not think it is what the country -wants. Nevertheless, that is exactly what will happen -unless so-m-e such provision is made.


Mr. STEVENS:: Would the minister consider the desirability of fixing -a maximum on the amount to be paid out under thi-s Bill?


James Alexander Calder: If this Bill goes through we shall have to bring down in the Estimates a sum that will cover any retirements under this Bill. I think for this year that should be a reasonably moderate Estimate until we have had an opportunity o-f finding out just what the situation is.
Let me give the committee one or two concrete instances that have come under my observation in my own department. As the hon. member from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) has said, Governments in the past, and I s-ay frankly, all Governments in the past are responsible fo,r this situation. I found in my department when I took charge men who had been appointed over the age of seventy. Some of them are now over eighty years of age and have nothing at all laid by for their old age. When I retired other men in the service of 45 and 50 years of age, I gave them only two months' allowance, but these older men I have mentioned who have been in the department 8 or 10 years have nothing at all. I cannot turn these people out just because Governments in the past made mistakes. Are we going to continue to allow these men to remain

there until they die and pay them their salaries, when they can give no proper service to the state for the money they draw?
I say no. I say we should take hold of the situation and deal with it the best we can. The Government has given this problem a great deal of consideration. We have studied it from every angle, and we have come to the conclusion that the measure before us is the only legal means of dealing with the problem that confronts us. <L do not say that the Bill should not be modified, that the detailed provisions made for dealing with the situation cannot be improved, but I do say that the situation at the present time is such, and will continue to be such, that we must have some measure of this nature before we can deal with it at all. The passing of a new superannuation Act that would deal with the future and compel all officers in the service to contribute, is not going to deal with this situation. We have now in the service some 600 or 800 men who .are contributing to a superannuation fund; they are taken care of, but we have also in the service men who have been there for a long period of years and who. have contributed nothing at all, and whose service has practically ceased so far as giving any value is concerned. It seems to me that we must deal with this situation, and deal with it reasonably, both from the standpoint of the public and of the officers who are. to be retired.
The hon. member fo.r Huntingdon (Mr. Kobb) inquired whether this Bill follows the recommendations of Sir George .Murray or the Arthur Young Company. I think it follows neither. I have not read Sir George Murray'.s report for a couple of years, and I do not recollect whether he made any suggestions regarding this problem or not, but I doubt very much if he did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was his report ever considered by the Government?


Mr.   OALDBK@: It has been considered several times, and many of the suggestions contained in that report are now being worked out under our new Civil Service Act. The report of Sir George Murray was considered very thoroughly when the Civil Service Act was amended years ago. I do not think this Bill is based upon anything coptained in Sir George Murray's report, and I am quite certain it is not based on any recommendations or suggestions by the Arthur Young Company. The Government' has been working on this problem itself,
in an endeavour to find means of dealing with it. This problem has been before all Governments of Canada for the last 20 or 30 years, and no Government in Canada has faced it before, .simply because it bristles with all kinds of difficulties. Any man who has had any experience at all of the administration of public .affairs knows perfectly well the nature of the difficulties that are met with in a problem of this nature. Unless Parliament at this time makes some provision, the river is simply going to continue to roll, and conditions will continue to get worse. My own hope is that before this House rises this measure either as it is, or modified as may be found necessary, will be put through in order that we may p'roceed with this work, which really must be done.
The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has pointed to a possible discrepancy between the provisions of this Bill and the Order in Council which provides for the appointment of the Arthur Young Company, or a branch of that concern, Ito inquire into the question of the re-organization of various branches of the Civil Service.
Mr. MACKENZIE, KING:	A possible
overlapping.
Mr. CALDiEK:	There is just the possibility of overlapping. It seems to me that if the company that is to make an inquiry into Ithe re-organization of certain branches of the service is to proceed with the work, there must be co-operation between that company and the Civil Service Commission. It goes through Ithat mill before it ever comes before the Government at all, and when that is done, I think there will be no difficulty. As the matter sltands at present, there is just the possibility of overlapping, but I am quite sure that slteps will be taken so that this overlapping will be done away with.
I do not know that there is anything further that I can add. So far as the principle is concerned, I think that we have pretty well covered Ithe ground. I am not going to ask that we consider the details at this moment because I must leave the Chamber in connection with some other work. I think it is just as well to give hon. members the fullest opportunity of reading the Bill and thoroughly understanding its provisions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon. Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
[Stage Direction]
On section 1-definitions:
James Alexander Calder: I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Administration of Justice-Miscellaneous expenditure, $10,000.
['All right.\nBill reported, and read the third time and passed.']
William Stevens Fielding: This is the first presentation of the Justice Estimates, is it not?


Mr. DOHERTY:: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: Of course, this is not the proper day, but we shall have to waive that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understood that by agreement last year it was decided that, if we sat on Saturday, before going into Committee of Supply a motion would be necessary. I would ask Mr. Speaker to express an opinion on the point.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the hon. member will refer to the Votes and Proceedings he will observe that the motion for Saturday sittings provides that the order of business on Saturday should be the same as on Friday. That being so, the* rules applicable to Friday also apply to Saturday. That has always been the practice.


Frank S. Cahill: ..What is the meaning of the item, "salary of purchasing agent"? This seems to 'be something new.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have not reached that item yet; this is miscellaneous expenditure. However, I may say that heretofore this item for salary of purchasing agent figured in the penitentiary service, but it was thought desirable, at the time the ptoaMge was made, that las we had purchasing itb do in comnieictlkm with the. police fo.noe, the purchasing agent should he an officer of the department generally. This item, therefore, appears under this head this year while the penitentiary estimate will show that much less. It does not represent an increase in our expenditure; there is a corresponding decrease in the penitentiary estimates.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Although the incident was mentioned in the House before, I take this opportunity of again calling the attention of the Minister of Justice to the very peculiar situation that has arisen out of the arrest of the two brothers Labrie. While

the explanation given by my hon. friend the other day seemed plausible, yet I am not convinced that it is satisfactory. I do not know the merits of the case, which was heard before the jurors at the Sherbrooke Assizes. I understand that the two Labrie brothers were arrested and that they appeared before the jury on a charge of murder, and a verdict of manslaughter was found against them. As I say, I am not familiar with the circumstances of the case but I know that a verdict of manslaughter was returned. I understand that one of the men was sentenced to life and the other to twenty-five years in the St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary. This is outside of the case, but I may say that, from the information I have and from what I have gathered from the press, it seems that the sentence was considered as rather severe. Of course, we have nothing to do with that; both the sentence and the verdict are established facts. I say that the sentence was found very severe because of the fact that the prisoners, who were released under proceedings on a habeas corpus writ, were received, as they reached (Sherbrooke, a very orderly and law-abiding city, by the whole population. The people went to the .station to welcome them, a,s though there were a feeling amongst them that the judge who had pronounced the sentence had dealt rather harshly with these men. Of course, I repeat, I do not know the merits of the case itself, and I simply now refer to the strange position in which the Department of Justice, the Attorney-General, the Superior Court of Montreal, and the officers of the St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary find themselves at the present moment.
The accused, after having been found guilty, were sent to the penitentiary, and their counsel prepared the proceedings for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus. He appeared before Mr. Justice Duclos, and after having argued his case-I have not the record before me-Mr. Justice Duclos, whom my hon. friend has appointed as one of the judges of the Superior Court in Montreal and who enjoys a very high reputation as a jurist, found that there was an error in the commitment and' granted the writ of habeas corpus. The two Labrie brothers were released and free they were, but only for a few days, or perhaps a few weeks. They returned home and received a remarkable welcome, a fact which, while I make absolutely no inference from it against the sentence, shows that there was something originally which was possibly wrong in the sentence that was pronounced by the pre-

^siding judge at Sherbrooke. The petaple otf tbalt city received the iprisianetns as welcome visitors. They returned to the farm. They seemed to be respected citizens of their community. In the township in which they resided they appear to have enjoyed the esteem of their neighbours. But suddenly an officer-is it an officer of the Department of Justice or an officer under the Attorney-General?-


Charles Joseph Doherty: The arrest was effected by an officer of the court,-


Rodolphe Lemieux: At all events, an officer of the court-


Charles Joseph Doherty: Whose activities were set in motion by the Attorney-General of the province.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A judicial officer appears and re-arrests the two Labrie brothers who had been set free by order of the court. They are forthwith returned to the St. Vincent de Paul .penitentiary. Naturally, this created quite a sensation. Their counsel immediately took fresh proceedings to get the prisoners back before the court. From the information I have-and it has been made public in the press-it appears that the counsel of these two men have been refused admission to St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary to confer with their clients. I received a letter to that effect from Mr. Cabana a few days ago. I will hand it over to my hon. friend if necessary. He was denied that privilege. One of my hon. friend's confreres of the Montreal Bar has been denied access to the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary where he might confer with these two unfortunate prisoners.


Charles Joseph Doherty: To whom did they apply for admission?
(Mr. LEMIEUX:	To the St. Vincent de
Paul authorities.


Charles Joseph Doherty: At the penitentiary?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. I have not the
letter under my hand at the moment but I will send it to my hon. friend. The ward en of the penitentiary who is an officer of the IGovernment, has absolutely ignored the orders of the court since.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman
must be very badly misinformed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And to the scandal of
the legal fraternity and .the bench and the public generally, he has been found guilty of contempt and has been sentenced to one year's imprisonment,


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does the hon. gentleman affirm these as being facts that he is now stating? The hon. gentleman is entirely misinformed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I read the other day-


Charles Joseph Doherty: In the newspapers-yes. Of course the hon. gentleman is at liberty to state the fact as he understands it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If it is not a fact I will have no hesitation in withdrawing the assertion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: My information, and i't comes from an official source is that the process with Which the hon. member is perfectly familiar-
. Mr. LEMIEUX: I will conclude in a moment. I wtish to have the benefit of my hon. (friend's explanation of the whole pase. I do not wish to prevent him from making a statement. I am informed-and if I am wrong so much the better-that an officer Of the Department of Justi/ce, namely, the warden of 'the penitentiary, Jias ignored the orders otf the court. There are many ways of ignoring 'them. He may have evaded service of the papers on ham. ,He -may suddenly disappear and the bailiff m-a.y tlbus be unable to serve him with the papers which would force him to appear before the court. As regards his being ^condemned by the judge to one year's imprisonment, of course, I have the press report for it. If I -aim wrong it is because I ,am erring with the press. One should not be surprised if flh-e press should be wrong at times.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Occasionally it is.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At all events I think I can affirm that the officers of the department did ignore, and ,are ignoring at the present 'time, the orders otf the court.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Quite mistaken; 1 will explain.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon. friend will kindly explain I Will 'be very glad 'but the incident has created a situation 'in legal circles and among the public generally ,which is to say the least regrettable. It is described as a travesty of justice.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I:f 'the facts iwere as the hon. gentleman bas apprehended tihem he might 'be justified in Ms statement.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is this fact, that these prisoners were -a't S't. Vincent de Paul Ipenitentiairy, flhait the judge of one otf the courts otf the land caused to bo issued a writ otf habeas corpus which re-

leased these two men'. They were free. jThey returned to their home and then, wd'th-put 'any proceedings, without any legal pteps bding taken,, summarily-shall I say ,brutally?-no-but summarily, am officer of the Crown appears, takes hold Of the two free men, because they were free at that time, and returns them within the four walls of the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary.


Mr. BUTTS:: What is wrong with your court?


Rodolphe Lemieux: If there its anything wrong with the Court the evil can be cured by legal process. I would like to have an explanation from my hon. friend the Minister olf Justice, I know 'that he is in earnest in this matter and that he would not stand for any miscarriage Of justice.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not if I can help it.


Mr LEMIEUX:: He will admit with me that the case is a serious one. It is a case where the liberty of the subject is in-yo-lved. I was taught in my young days when I was studying law that the habeas corpus was the palladium of British liberty and that its maintenance on the -Statute Book is dear to every British subject wherever he -goes in the Empire. Here -are two men im St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary. A writ of habeas corpus is issued. They are set free in virtue of -that writ and they are re-arrested without any judicial process and summarily banded -back to the author-itiee at St. Vincent de Paul. When their pounsel attempts to- bring them back before the -courts he cannot have 'access to hi's' -clients. The officers of 'the Justice Department at St. Vinioenit die Paul -will not Obey the orders Olf the court. If it its necessary that the law be amended t-o- prevent the recurrence oif -s-udh a travesty of justice, let -us amend the 1-aiw.
My hon. friend may find that the expression is too strong, but if the case is as I have stated, it is a traversty Of justice, even though strictly legal. There canno't be any appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Duelos, and I say that for the sake of justice itself-for -the respect we owe to justice intrinsically then we should not allow any person, even- the Minister of Justice himself, to do an injustice to a man without having regard, for the proper legal processes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am willing to say still less the Minister of Justice than any other man.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of course. Will not the minister admit that as the case stands today-if you maintain that strange situation -the public are led to believe that in spite of the judgment of the court-which judgment may be right or may be wrong-you take the law into your own hands.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The horn member is
proceeding on the assumption that somebody has disobeyed an order 'of the court, whereas nobody has done so. The whole question that my hon. friend seeks to argue before this House is now regularly before the courts of the country to be passed upon and, under the contention that respect should be paid to those courts, he is seeking to transfer the discussion to this Parliament before the court has had1 an opportunity of pronouncing on the matter at issue. I quite understand that this is the result of Mis placing reliance upon erroneous information.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The information is not
erroneous so far as regards the granting of a writ of habeas corpus to these two men.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The first writ o|f habeas corpus was obeyed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was obeyed, hut was the writ of habeas corpus afterwards obeyed when yon re-arrested the two men? By virtue of what legal process was that done?


Charles Joseph Doherty: A process of court emanating from the Cohrt of King's Bench at Sherbrooke, subsequent to the issuing of the writ. ,


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. friend
now explain the case?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, I certainly shall
be very glad to do so. I think the hon. member's account of what took place fully deserves the descriptio'n which he attributed to what, under his misinformation, !h'e supposed had been done, it is a perfect parody on the facts of the case. Now let us begin at the beginning. These men were sentenced by a competent court. With that sentence, of course, the Department of Justice has nothing to' do; with the enforcement of tihvat sentence-so far as the carrying of it out by bringing these men to the penitentiary is concerned-this department has nothing to do. Under the law it is the duty of Canada to provide penitentiaiies in which men sentenced for more than two years, shall be received and kept in execution ojf the judgments of competent courts. A writ of habeas corpus issued. It was

argued. No notice of these proceedings was given in any way to this department, properly speaking that was not necessary. I am not finding any fault witlhi that. But this department was not represented at the application for the first writ of habeas coirpus, and I am not suggesting there was any necessity that it should have been. The Attorney General of the province, charged with the administration of justice, is the proper opposing party in t!he case of such an application. In referring to that part of the case I rely upon information which any person making inquiry may have.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was the Attorney General represented there?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I believe he was. Thne is no use mentioning names because I am not sure. I think his representative at Sherbrooke acted for him upon t!We application for habeas corpus. The honourable judge granted the writ and ordered the release of the men. That writ was obeyed and the men were released. But the hon. gentleman will quite recognize that the circumstance tihat that hapnene.l did not alter the fact that the conviction and the sentence still stood. I am informed that the ground on which the judge granted the writ was that there was something irregular in the way in w'bjch the men were brought to the penitentiary. He did not decide-of course he could not have decided-that the judgment of the court, the conviction ,and the sentence were not legal; he was not a court of appeal from the court of King's Bench. He decided, as1 I understand it, that there was something irregular in the document of commitment or warrant.


Jacques Bureau: But these men were illegally held in the penitentiary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Just a moment. At that time by reason of some irregularity in the proceedings by which these men were taken into the penitentiary they had not been legally brought in and therefore were not legally held under that commitment.
M r. BUREAU:	That is the gist of the
whole thing.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Will the hon. member
allow me to call his attention to something. It had not been held that the conviction was illegal, or that the sentence was illegal: they both stood as the judgment of a competent court ordering that one of these men should spend 25 years, and the other a lifetime in the penitentiary. Both conviction and sentence stood intact. With the execution of that judgment this department was not charged. The Attorney General of the province was charged with the duty of seeing that judgment-which stood absolutely intact-should be executed. One attempt to execute it had failed by reason of an irregularity, but the judgment was not satisfied: These men were men at liberty under sentence to be in the penitentiary.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Could they not have claimed "autrefois convict"?


Charles Joseph Doherty: What I am trying to
point out is that Mr. Justice Duclos did not pretend to decide that they were not properly convicted. As I say, the judgment of the court stood. Now the law officers of the province of Quebec, at whose, head I am sure the hon. member will agree, is a very distinguished lawyer in the person of the Hon. Mr. Taschereau-and the head of the Government-a gentleman who was for years the Attorney General of the province of Quebec, and who I am sure nobody, certainly least of all my hon. friend (Mr. Le-rnieux), would question, is a lawyer of outstanding reputation-that Government and the Attorney General are by the law charged with the administration of justice and the enforcement of the judgments of the criminal court. They thought that it was their duty not to allow these men-men still under sentence

to go scot free because there had been some irregularity in the first steps taken to execute that judgment. As I say, there was an irregularity in the method of execution but the judgment stood. They may have been right or they may have been wrong, but they had a duty to discharge and that duty was to see to the enforcement of that judgment in accordance with the law. They were advised that since there was an irregularity in one commitment, and the judgment still stood, the proper thing to do was to issue a regular commitmentt. They therefore caused a commitment to be issued and a warrant to be delivered to Ithe proper officer of the court, and, as I said the other day, although that was no part of our obligation, we did feel that we should -allow our officers Ito be of assistance to these law authorities in so far as they might properly be so in connection with the execution of that warrant.
On that new commitment, these two men were brought to the penitentiary. The warden of the penitentiary had the previous week got an order from one	judge	to	release these men.
The following week arrives the pro-

per law officer with the new commitment emanating from the court ordering the warden to take these men in execution of the sentence, and he obeyed that order. I think the hon. gentleman will himself admit that the warden had no option to do otherwise.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will not my hon. friend at once admit that Ithe expression "parody" is not too strong when we find that situation existing:	An officer haying to say
"Yes" to-day and "No" Ito-morrow?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not want to use
the expression, if my friend will pardon me, for the reason, that the "parody" is in the contradictory orders of the courts; and that is one of the very substantial reasons pointed out by the Supreme Court of Canada why a judge on habeas corpus should not, once lit appears to him that men are in jail under the judgment of a competent criminal coiuirlt, undertake Ibo let them oiut. It is not for him to decide Ithe regularity of the procedure of the Court of King's Bench. My hon. friend says that when a court makes a mistake there is a remedy by appeal. That is absolutely true. If Ithere was an irregularity in the proceedings of the Court of King's Bench under which these men were committed to the penitentiary, there was a remedy by writ of error -ot other proper recourse by way of appeal. I am not quite sure Ithat my hon. friend and I are not at the moment both guilty of contempt of court, because we are discussing questions which aire now actually pending before the Superior Court in Montreal.
The difficulty has arisen in this case that somebody has, with all respect, introduced into it, with the desire to create a sensation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then if it was not with that motive I am at a loss to know what motive prompted him. But let the motive go. Somebody has erroneously introduced into this matter the suggestion-which, of course, in its nature is sensational, whether it was his motive or not.-that there has been something in the nature of a rebellion on the part of the Attorney General of the province or of the Minister of Justice of Canada, In that regard I think the Minister of Justice has got an undue share of attention, if I may mention it, because I may say that so far I have not seen any criticism of the Attorney General of the province in regard to the procedure-and I am gUtad of tjhiat because he deserves no criticism, but however that may be, unfortunately there has crept into this matter

some comoeipltio'ni of the existence oif a desire to rebel against the orders of the court.
The order of Mr. Justice Ducloe having been obeyed, it was exhausted. As I say, at the instance of the law officers of the province a new .commitment was issued, and the officer of the court arrived at the penitentiary with the order of the Court of King's Bench that one of these men should be detained in the penitentiary for 25 years, and the other one for his life. Under the order the warden took charge of the two men. Then what happened? Counsel for these men made application for a new writ of habeas corpus. Now, I really think it is an unfortunate thing that I should be put in the position of having to discuss this matter at the present time, because whatever reputation may be sought to be given to me in this connection for lack of respect for the courts, I have the highest respect for the courts and this matter is actually before them. A second writ of habeas corpus :wias issued on a Saturady-I do not know at what hour. It was made returnable at half-past fen on Monday morning. It was served on Saturday night-I do not know at what hour. No notice was given to the Attorney General of the province, although according to a practice that always existed in the days when I practised law, and which I am assured on the highest authority still prevails in cases of that nature, it is the rule that notice should be given to the Attorney General of the province. No notice was given -to him. Sunday only was allowed to intervene between the service of the writ and its return. The order was to produce these men before a judge who was not the judge sitting in the practice court, but the judge who had issued the previous writ of habeas corpus. I am not suggesting that that affects his jurisdiction. I am only pointing out the chain of events. 'The order was made returnable in Room No. 4 of the court house -not in Room 31, which is where the practice court habitually sits and lawyers expect to go for practice matters. This Room No. 4, as no doubt hon. gentlemen familiar with the location know, is in a wing or annex of the courthouse.
At half-past ten on Monday morning the warden, in company with the representative of the Attorney General of the province, was in the practice court-the place, as I say, where such matters usually are dealt with. He was- there with his return, and that return, as I had occasion to mention the other day, was in the words of a return

which, under like circumstances, had been declared by the Supreme Court of Canada to be sufficient. Now, unfortunately, as I say, the writ was made returnable in another room, and the judge was in that other room, and there seems to have been some misunderstanding about it; but in any event, the judge, by reason of the non-production in that room of the two prisoners and the non-appearance of the warden, made an entry on the back of the writ ordering the liberation of the prisoners, and then proceeded to issue what is called "a rule nisi," which, as hon. gentlemen familiar with the form know, orders that in view of certain things a man shall be imprisoned, and in this instance he was* to be imprisoned for a year. But there is always the little saving clause at the end, "nisi causa contra." This rule, like all these rules, said: "Unless cause to the contrary be shown, on Monday next, the 21st of June."
Mr. LEM1EUX:	My facts are pretty accurate, then.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman
said that the court decided that he had been guilty of contempt and ordered him to go to jail for a year. But if somebody made an application for contempt against any one of us, the rule that would issue would order that this man, having been guilty of contempt, be imprisoned for such a period of time unless cause to the contrary be shown. That is the rule which, I am informed, issued against Mr. Malepart. Mr. Malepart is represented by counsel and through his counsel will show cause on Monday morning, and then we will know whether or not Mr. Malepart was guilty of contempt. I do not want to discuss at all the effect of the writing on the back of the writ an order for the release of the men concerned. It would seem to me clear, whatever my opinion may be worth, that such an order would be at least premature. I think that anybody who gives the matter a moment's thought will realize that on a writ ordering the production of men for the purpose of ascertaining on what grounds they are held it is hardly possible for a judge, without any returns, to know the grounds on which they are held and to order their release. Hon. gentlemen will admit that for all that there was before that judge at the time in the form of a report, those men might have been convicted of an entirely different offence and committed again on an entirely different commitment. I do not think that that was intended to operate as an order for the release. However, I realize that there is a certain impropriety in my expressing these
opinions, because this matter is before the courts. When I had occasion to make a statement the other day I gave assurance that we would do our very best to have the *matter judicially disposed of. That is the extent of our disposition to be guilty of contempt of court. I omitted to say that the warden's return was filed; it is of record in the court. It was filed, if my information is correct, at 10.45, he having been in company with the representative of the Attorney General in the practice court in the court house in the city of Montreal for the purpose of having that return produced in the meantime. Now, so far as the suggestion of disobedience is concerned, out of this unfortunate
5 p.m. confusion about rooms has grown this mythical refusal, not only of the warden, but, I understand, of the Minister of Justice and of the Attorney General of the province, to obey a writ. Now, I do not want any confusion. It is the fact that the men were not actually produced that morning. And why? Because the warden was advised that there was not jurisdiction and that he should take the proper course that everybody takes when he thinks an order has been issued without jurisdiction: that is, that he should go before the court and most respectfully submit the reasons why he believes that the court has not jurisdiction, and that is what he did. I have not any doubt-well, I do not want to say that I have not aqy doubt about legal questions; I suppose that is not becoming, but my impression is that if we had not had this little mistake as .to rooms and that return had been put in before the judge the court then or later, if it thought it necessary to have the matter under advisement, would have decided the question that was then raised. As I understand it, that is among the questions which will come before the court on Monday morning. I may say that my information is that on Monday morning the matter will come before the Chief Justice of the province of Quebec .1 think hon. gentlemen will agree with me that it is a fortunate thing-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Chief Justice Archibald?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What more jurisdiction has he?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He has no more, but I was going to say that the judge who issued the first order and all of us are to be congratulated that there should be an opportunity of having the question, upon which there is difference of opinion, adjudicated

upon by a judge who has not already pronounced himself upon that important question of jurisdiction. That is all I am going to say; I do not suggest that the Chief Justice has any more jurisdiction than any other judge. The question of jurisdiction does not arise because the judge is a judge of the Superior Court rather than a judge of some other court. The question of jurisdiction that arises is this: The Habeas Corpus Act is in express terms made inapplicable to people who are held under the sentence or judgment of a competent criminal court-and, indeed, to people who are held under the judgment of .a civil court. The purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to make sure that no man is detained without authority of law.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Without cause.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Without authority of law; that is the one satisfactory cause for detaining a man. I do not know what Mr. Justice Archibald will decide, and I am not here to criticise the decision of Mr. Justice Duclos. But my own opinion, based upon the advice of men in whose competency I have the very highest confidence, is that Mr. Justice Duclos had no jurisdiction. However, his writ was obeyed.


Mr.   DEMIIBUX@: The second writ.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The writ that he maintained was obeyed. His second writ was obeyed to this extent: As I said I do not want to make confusion. I am not saying that the men were brought, but the warden made his return respectfully submitting to the court that because this man was held upon the sentence of	a competent
criminal court, he, the	warden, felt
it his duty to decline the jurisdiction. I want to say, just as bearing upon the possibility of there being any contempt in that, that if he was mistaken in doing that, he had behind him the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada that if his facts were aright that was the proper return to make. After all, it would be an extreme interpretation of the doctrine of contempt to say that a man following the decision of the Supreme 'Court of Canada as to what he ought to do was guilty of contempt. However, that is for the courts to decide. That matter will be tried out before a proper tribunal. I would not be going into this at all, if it were not that I do think that the mis-apprehension that appears to exist not only as to people's intentions but as to what was done, is most prejudicial to the administration of justice in this country. I

would like to add that in the judgment of the 'Supreme Court which I have just mentioned that is one of the results that is pointed out as being conclusive reasons why upon writ of habeas corpus, once it comes to the knowledge of the judge before whom the application for the writ is made that the man is there under judgment of a competent tribunal, he should stop. I am not going to introduce into the matter any question about the procedure of inferior tribunals. I express no opinion one way or the other upon that for the moment, because here we are not concerned with that. We are here concerned with the judgment of a Superior Court, the court especially charged with the administration of criminal justice in the province, and, as I say, in the judgment of the Supreme Court which I have mentioned, and of which I read an extract, this very creation of this regrettable situation is pointed out as one of the conclusive reasons in support of what is held to be the undoubted law, that under those circumstances when the judge -has before him sufficient to show the man is in the penitentiary or in jail upon the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction it is time for him to say "My hands are off. This is not a case where I can undertake to decide w-hether he ought to be there or not." I say that with all respect to Mr. Justice Duclos, the position the warden was in, was that he found himself in face of the orders of two courts, one telling him to do one thing, and another telling him to do another. He comes to the court that made the last of these orders and says "I submit that under the circumstances you have no jurisdiction, and I do that very respectfully." That will be argued and decided.
I recognize the importance of the liberty of the subject, but if hon. gentlemen give one moment's thought to what would be our position, to what is our position in this country, if every individual judge in the country has authority when he thinks there is an irregularity in the proceedings of another court to release from our penitentiaries and jails any man confined therein no matter how clear it is that he was sentenced to be there, they will see it would be impossible to properly enforce the law in Ithis country. I say that with no disrespect. I am not suggesting that any judge would intentionally let a man out perversely, but if our system of law is such that the proceedings of all our criminal courts are subject to be set aside if there be found in the province or in the district any judge of a -Superior Court who is of the opinion that

the proceeding taken to convey to the warden of the penitentiary the information that the man was convicted was not sufficient how will it be possible to enforce law into this country?
I do not know that I have deallt at greater length with this matter than could be avoided once the question, is raised. I have made this explanation because, the question being raised, I felt that I owed it to my own consideration and. respect for the authority of the courts and the administration of justice to make it as clear as I could that this matter does not involve, as I see it, any contempt of Ithe court. Most assuredly it involves no intentional contempt of the court. It may be-it is not for me to decide-Ithat the submission to the court of a question whether it had jurisdiction was contempt; it is not for me to decide.
I only want Ito add this:	I have tried
1fco explain the facts. I do not want to argue. Perhaps it is that what was done was wrong; if so, the courts will so decide. I think that what was done was right; if so, the courts will so decide. I do ask that hon. gentlemen exclude from their minds this conception that what was done involves a disregard of law and an indisposition to bow to the orders of the court. 'There is the fact, and this ought nolt to be lost sight of, that the Attorney General of the province has duties as well as rights. He has a responsibility for the performance of those duties, and if he be of opinion that this sentence has not been satisfied and that it is his duty, as charged with the administration of justice and the enforcement of the law, to see that that sentence is satisfied, whether he be right in his opinion or not, surely if he be of that opinion he was but doing his duty in taking the legal process to bring about the execution of that sentence. He had been told that one commitment had been issued which did not contain all the things that in the opinion of Mr. Justice Duclos ought to be in it, and therefore the court held that that way of bringing him in was irregular. And (that he could not be held under that bringing of him in. Thereupon, if the Attorney General was convinced that it was his duty to see to the enforcement of that judgment, which sltill stood, and I would have shared that opinion, what course was open to him except to issue a new commitment, meet the objections that were made Ito the order that was issued by the court, and see that it was executed. Then, as has happened, there would be opportunities for the courts 244
to decide whether he was right or wrong in doing what he did. What was his alternative? His alternative was to sit quietly back wilthout exhausting the methods he 'believed to be open to him and say: "I am not concerned, I am willing to recognize that an avowed-murderer-I do not know that these men are avowed murderers, but if it applies in this case ilt will apply in any case-the circumstances of the conviction have nothing to do with it." The alternative he had was to say: "lit is a matter of pure indifference to me. I am willing to sit back and accept the situation that if a clerk leaves a line out in a commitment and the person committed is fortunate enough to gelt into the penitentiary under that commitment, with that line left out, the sentence of the court is gone forever. All his punishment is fulfilled, because somebody left out a line or two of the instrument, not the judgment, ordering Ithe transportation to the penitentiary." That is the quesltion to be decided, and the courts will decide it.


Jacques Bureau: The impression has been created that the courts of our province are being overridden by certain authorities-I do not know who they are-and that judgments are not being respected.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have given you the
facts. Surely I cannot deal with impressions if I do not know what the fact is upon which they are based. I take it that they are based upon misinformation.


Jacques Bureau: Let me give you a
straight statement of fact. These men were convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary. After they were in the penitentiary there was a writ of habeas corpus issued and they were released owing to irregularities. 'No judge interfered; nothing was. done. They were taken afterwards, without any order of the court, the habeas corpus still being in force-that is, so far as the facts are known to the public, and no doubt it was in force,-and are thrown bodily back into the penitentiary. By virtue of what authority was that done?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have told you, by virtue of the authority of the Court of King's Bench. Let me give the hon. gentleman what is a perfectly analagous case with which we are all absolutely familiar. A judgment in a civil case is rendered. II take my execution and issue a writ of seizure. I go and seize the defendant's goods, an irregularity creeps in, and opposition is made. That opposition is maintained; it is



decided that the way I tried to execute my judgment was irregular, and it is quashed. Then what do I do? My judgment is still there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The opposition is fought in the courts.
Mr. (DOHERTY: Yes; and I take it that the first writ of habeas corpus was the opposition to the way of execution in this matter. It was decided that the way of execution was faulty.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was not decided in
this case.


Charles Joseph Doherty: (On the first writ
of habeas carpus it was decided that the method of procedure of the officers of the court was irregular, and their proceeding was quashed just as my seizure was quashed in the hypothetical case I have given. So far, we agree, there is analogy. Now, with my seizure quashed I go back to the court but the court does not intervene at all by any action of the judge. I apply for a new writ of execution.


Jacques Bureau: Certainly, a'new writ.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes; precisely what
was done in this case, but this is what the hon. gentleman apparently will not stop to apprehend. A new commitment was issued.


Jacques Bureau: The court was no longer sitting.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It' does not need the court to draw up a commitment. [DOT] The commitment is the writ of execution which the officers of the court issue, and just as in my civil case, when I go for my second writ of execution I would not go to the judge but to the officer of the court, and say:	"There is my unsatisfied judgment;
will you give me another writ of execution, because last week or last month you gave me an irregular writ?"-so in this case it is the officer of the court on whom the responsibility rests.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The analogy does not
hold good in the case of a criminal action.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman so affirms, and that is what the court will decide.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, it seems to me, and it is apparently the old British tradition too, that in criminal matters you cannot decide anything without the presence of the prisoner, either personally or by his representative. Now, these prisoners were

absolutely free. They were released by writ of habeas corpus. Then the Attorney General or some one else, I do not know who, goes before the court, interviews the clerk, and gets another commitment. Where are the prisoners all that time? In the hands of your officers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: With all respect, I do
think that it is useless for me to try to bring conviction home to the hon. gentleman, because we understand this matter absolutely differently. As I understand it, the writ of habeas corpus ordered that the prisoners be released, and they were released. They were at liberty just as they were at liberty before the court sentenced them.


Jacques Bureau: At liberty in jail.


Charles Joseph Doherty: They were at liberty, with a judgment of the Court of King's Bench saying: "You ought to' be in penitentiary; I condemn you to spend twenty-five years in penitentiary." Now, what responsibility ils there upon this department in respect olf that proceeding? I have [DOT]stood by the Attorney General because in my opinion he is right. If he (was mas-taken there can be no. responsibility on me; so (why do. hon. gentlemen bring this matter before this House and suggest that in some way blame i!s to be attached to the Department of Justice?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who arrested the men?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The officer of the court.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of the Department of Justice.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The officer o!f the department was used for the purpose of identifying the prisoner. I do not want to be misunderstood [when I say that the responsibility for that proceeding is upon the Attorney General. That is undoubtedly true. It was for him to take the responsibility and he took it; and so far as responsibility may attach to me because I think he was right, I am perfectly frank to say that I do think he [was right. Of course, when I say "I," hoar, gentlemen will understand that it was not I .personally who was supervising the .proceeding, although I aim prepared to take the responsibility for what the officers of the department did. And 'they, .being convinced .that the Attorney . General was acting legally and properly- .and as a matter of fact, I doubt whether they rwould have been entitled to' act otherwise than, they did, .because it was for the Attorney General to assume the responsi-

bi'lity-they did provide an officer to go down and identify the prisoner. The responsibility fox that phase of the proceedings is clearly -with the Attorney General. But in saying that I wish it to be understood 'that I shark nothing. I never have shirked any responsibility in any event. I may have been wrong; I may ibe wrong this time; but the responsibility in this case is not with me. As custodians of the penitentiary the department in this matter is in a purely receptive position. The warden certainly had no jurisdiction whatever when they brought in the men the second time to- refuse to receive them. Would lion, gentlemen suggest that the warden had a right to- -say: "That is not a good commitment; I won't take them in"? If we get to that stage we shall reverse everything. The warden took them in on the warrant based on the second commitment, and now he submits to the court 'the question whether he is bound , to produce the prisoners; -and we have the suggestion that some one is trying to make a rebellion -against -the court. I think it will be conceded that it was the duty of the Attorney General responsible for the administration of the law to take such steps as, in his judgment, was open to him to prevent it being established that that was the condition of the law. If it should ultimately be decided by the courts that in taking the step he did take- he was mistaken, I have no doubt we will have to -accept the ultimate judgment of the court. That is one thing, but to say that we axe to visit condemnation on the Attoxney General because he took such steps as he thought were open to him in the enforcing of the law, leaving it to everybody else affected to take whatever steps they might believe were open to them to contest the matter in -order that it might be finally decided by the courts is most unfair. I do say that it is most unfair to suggest t-hat the Attorney General of the province is blameworthy in that regard.


Jacques Bureau: 'If there is any blame it is on the Minister of Justice, and I will tell him why.
-Mr. DOHQEIRTY: I think that is sovereignly unjust and I do not think that my hon. friend, basing his opinion on a purely technical interpretation, will seriously say that there is -any blame to be attributed to the Minister of Justice.	.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend says that they are only a receiving agency at the 244J
penitentiary but I would remind him that they are also a detention agency. The warden is not in the Department of Justice. My hon. friend says that the first writ of habeas corpus w-a-s issued without jurisdiction.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I had been convinced that the second proceeding was entirely illegal in my judgment and opinion and that the first writ of habeas corpus was absolutely right I would have had no authority to have said to the warden "Let that man out." The Court of King's Bench had said to him by its legal process "Keep him in."


Jacques Bureau: This unfortunate incident is due to the fact that the men went out on the first habeas corpus writ. If the warden had been instructed not to obey -any orders served upon him without the decision of the court being taken and if he had withheld his hand until the matter had been submitted to the Department of Justice the whole thing would not have occurred.
M-r. DOHERTY: I certainly would reprimand any officer of my department whatever his opinion -might be, who undertook to say to the w-arden: "Do not receive a man brought to you by a proper officer of the court with a commitment from that court. You, Mr. Warden, I, the deputy minister, or I, the -Minister of Justice, am going to decide whether the proceedings of the court are regular or not."


Jacques Bureau: I do not submit that case. I submit this: "Do not let them o-ut under any paper unless 1 tell you the paper is valid."
Mr. DO-HlERTY: -I quite concede that it was an error on the part of the warden not to take advice.
.Some hon. MjEMBERS: Carried.


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not want to interrupt -this debate because it is niot -relevant to the item under consideration. I do not think it is relevant. I find that there is another item providing for miscellaneous expenditure in connection with St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary and any amount which may he required to pay for -any expense in connection with this question will undoubtedly come out of that item. But there is a greater and more important reason for the Chairman intervening and it is the well-known principle which is very clearly set forth in May's Parliamentary Procedure. In the course of the debate the Minister of

Justice has pointed out that this is a matter which will be brought before the courts on Monday of next week for decision and May, at page 223, says quite clearly that:
All matters awaiting the jurisdiction of 3. court of law cannot be brought forward in debate.
Under that rule I must decide that any further discussion is out of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried, carried.
Mr. LEMfEEUX: I take exception to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, in so far as my hon. friend the Minister of Justice has hinted that somebody wanted to create a sensation by bringing the case before this Parliament.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If my words were susceptible of that meaning I want most absolutely to withdraw them. I had not the slightest idea of imputing to the hon. gentleman a motive of that kind. I had no idea of suggesting that in bringing this matter before the House the motive of my hon. friend had anything to do with creating a sensation. I do not remember the exact words that I used but what I had in my mind was the wrong impression that was created in the outside world by reading what had been reported by the newspapers. I did say that it seemed to me that amongst those who had given the information on the subject to the public there must have been a desire to put it in the most sensational way and thus create a sensation. If the hon. gentleman is under the impression that I meant to refer to him in any way I beg to assure him that I did not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried, carried.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The words that were
used by Mr. Justice Duclos the other day conveyed the idea of a sensation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes they were of that; nature.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 'They are not mine,
they are his, and he is one of the appointees oif my hon'. iMiend opposite. As regards the personality of the Attorney General and the Prime Minister I have a feeling of the very greatest friendship for 'Sir Lomer Gouin and the highest respect for the Attorney General of Quebec, but if ever my conscience tells me that an injustice has taken place in a case of law ,1 will fail in my duty, no matter what the Attorney General of Quebec, Ontario or Nova Scotia thinks, in a case affecting the liberty of a subject, if I do not bring the facts, as I know them, to the attention of the Minis-
IThe Chairman.]
ter of Justice. I do not blame the Minister of Justice personally.


Jacques Bureau: I do.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not. I have my
own idea' as to the gentleman who engineered the whole thing. I have my idea-I shall not mention it. I do not blame the Minister of Justice, he may not be personally responsible. His responsibility is es-qualite. As regards the accuracy of the statement I have made I take issue with my hon. friend. My hon. friend inferred that I was not quite accurate in my statement. I may not have used the proper expression when I said that this officer had been found guilty or had been condemned by the court, but the only distinction to be made is that a rule nisi was issued against him which means in the last resort a judgment .against him for contempt of court. Therefore in so far as that is concerned, I was absolutely accurate. As to the sum total of the argument, am I not right in bringing this matter before Parliament? My hon. friend has come exactly where I wanted him to come where every friend of justice wanted him to come; that is, he proposes to have this matter settled by the court and not by the warden of the penitentiary who may be given orders by an outside party thus ignoring the judgment of the court. My hon. friend says the case is going before the courts on Monday.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who says "Carried"?
Does any one say "carried"?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The liberty of the subject does not affect hon. members?


Mr. McISAAO:: I rise to a point of order. The Chairman has ruled that this is out of order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am surprised that a Scotchman is against the liberty of a subject. The hon. member is the first Scotchman I have know who supports the highhanded authority of an officer of the Crown in ignoring the judgment of the court when the liberty of the subject is at stake. At all events I want to say this, in all friendship to the Minister of Justice: I am satisfied with his explanation in so far as he *states that on Monday, before the Assistant Chief Justice in the province of Quebec- Mr. Justice Archibald-the whole question will be settled.


Mr. DENIS:: This is perhaps the only opportunity I shall have to ask the minister if he intends bringing in a Bill this session to increase the salaries of the judges of the Superior Court, and others, in the province of Quebec, and also whether the nomination of new judges will be made to the King's Bench in order to give effect to the law which was passed last year and which is now on the Statute Book, namely, Chapter 76 of 9 King George V.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not in a position to say absolutely what will take place. The *spirit indeed is willing but there are many circumstances to be taken into consideration.
Mr. PROT1LX: Funds are lacking.
Mr. .DENIS: As this is the opportunity for one to express his opinion I will take the liberty of expressing mine, and my opinion is that the best men in the country should be selected as judges.


Jacques Bureau: That bars me out.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member should not spring such an awful suggestion.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I do not think my suggestion is altogether out of place. However, I do not want to dwell unduly on this point, as it is a matter for the decision of the Government. But there is another feature of the question which is in the hands of Parliament, and that is the salary which is paid to judges. Once the advice is given to appoint the 'best men in the country to these high judicial positions, then as a consequence, we must see that they are adequately paid.


Jacques Bureau: Give them the best pay; that is logical.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Yes, give them the best pay.
I contend that at present our judges are not sufficiently paid. In order to make myself perfectly clear on the first point, I should say that I am not by any means insinuating that the nominations made in the past were not proper nominations. I do maintain, however, that we should begin by making good nominations and supplement that by paying a good salary, an adequate salary. The salaries of our judges have not been increased for, I would not dare to say what number of years.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not for fifteen years, I think.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Not for fifteen years? Well, when the salaries of the judges have not been increased for the last fifteen years the
fact speaks for itself, and one need not go any further. We all know-it has been said a hundred times in this House-that it costs at least a hundred per cent more to live to-day than it did fifteen years ago. Consequently according to that scale the judges who are to-day receiving $7,000 a year should be paid $14,000. Perhaps I should not go that far, but certainly there is room for improvement and therefore the salaries of the judges should be increased. Now, as to the nomination of further judges I entertain the hope that the present session will not pass without these new appointments being made to the Court of King's Bench, because this question is very important to the province of Quebec. I need not dilate further upon the matter, because the Minister of Justice is perfectly well aware of the facts.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would like to add my
voice to that of the hon. member who has just taken his seat and to urge the augmentation of the salaries of the Supreme Court judges. I understand that these salaries have been the same for fifteen years. Well, they were too low to start with, and they are very much more inadequate now owing to the increase in the cost of living that we hear so much about. This country has grown in importance very materially in the last fifteen years. Therefore the remuneration paid to the Chief Justice and the other judges of the Supreme Court- which a great many people would like to see made a court of last resort in this country-is simply absurd. The salaries which they receive are not at all in accordance with the dignity of their positions and, I understand, are totally inadequate, because we must remember that the gentlemen who occupy those distinguished positions must live in a manner befitting their rank. I perhaps could live on half the amount that they receive because I do not have to maintain anything like the same status that a judge in the Supreme Court is obliged to maintain. We must also remember that if the present judges were to vacate their positions, owing to death or other reasons it is doubtful whether qualified1 men could be got to fill the positions at the salaries now paid. I think those salaries should be materially increased so as to give the Chief Justice at least $15,000, and the other judges at least $12,000 per annum. I do not know that I am an advocate of the views of those who want to make the Supreme Court a court of last resort in Canada, because as long as we .are connected with Great Britain I think we

should avail ourselves of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If, however, the Supreme Court of Canada erver comes to he the court of last resort better salaries will have to (be paid in order to attract men of the very highest type to that court. I urge, and urge very strongly, that the salaries of the Supreme Court judges be raised immediately to a reasonable basis, and that these judges be allowed a salary sufficient to enable them to live in accordance with the dignity of their position and of the importance of the country which they represent. Until recently the judges of the Supreme Court of the United 'States were practically in the same position as our own -if not even worse-with respect to the stipends they enjoyed; but I believe there has been an improvement in that respect owing no doubt to the fact that the Supreme Court of the adjoining Republic has come to be regarded as one of the great courts of the world1. In Canada, as we increase in population and in importance, we should recognize the fact that the -Supreme Court is virtually the court of final appeal so far as we are concerned, and should raise the salaries of -the judges to a figure -more in accordance with their high dignity and status. We should do that and do it at once.


Jacques Bureau: May I be permitted to supplement the remarks that have fallen from the hon. members who have preceded me. The Supreme 'Court of -Canada is regarded as the highest tribunal in the land, but I have heard that title applied to this Parliament. If we are going to increase the salaries of the judges of the Supreme -Court I take advantage of the circumstance that the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) is now in his seat to urge upon him that the salaries of -the judges of this higher court should also be increased. To make my point clear bey-ond the possibility of d-oubt and in -order hot to leave any ambiguity- because people have been afraid to talk about it-I for one declare that in my opinion the indemnity paid to the members of this Parliament should be increased.


Mr. PROULX:: The judges of this *country-are as patriotic as are the members of Parliament, and I think are willing to consider the financial condition of the country and to wait for an increase in their salaries.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Edmond Proulx: I admit that- the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) may he right in his view that, considering the in-

crea-se in the cost of living, the indemnity paid to members may not be as adequate as it was some years ago. But, Mr. Chairman, we must make a sacrifice. The soldiers that we sent overseas made great sacrifices during the war. They fought for this country for $1.10 a day. Now they are asking for a -bonus, and we think that the financial condition of the country does not justify Parliament in -giving them that bonus. How would it look if the members of -this House should vote themselves an increase of $1,500 in their indemnity?


Jacques Bureau: It would look all right.


Edmond Proulx: Or even to increase the salaries of the judges?


Jacques Bureau: We have some self-respect.


Edmond Proulx: The judges are getting
very good salaries considering 'the salaries that are paid to the Civil Service and the indemnities which senators and members of the House of Commons receive. They are in a better position than we are because they get a generous retiring allowance. We have in the province of Ontario retired judges who are receiving their -full salary of $7,000-and they are not doing nothing. For instance, I know one of these retired gentlemen who is manager of a big financial corporation and is perhaps getting a salary larger than his retiring allowance. Such cases may be exceptions, I admit, but still the retiring allowances should be taken into consideration when we speak of judges' salaries. My hon. friend said that these salaries had nolt -been increased for fifteen years. I remember that last year the salaries of -county court judges were increased by $1,000.


Jacques Bureau: They are talking of the Supreme Court judges.


Edmond Proulx: That was treated as a case of urgency. The salaries of the judges of the Superior Courts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and of the western provinces were increased. There are no judges of the Supreme Court-, except those in Quebec, in receipt of less than $7,000 a year.


Jacques Bureau: There are none in Quebec.


Edmond Proulx: I know that in Ontario
Ithey receive $7,000 a year from the Dominion and another $1,000 from the province, giving them a total salary of $8,000. '
Shortly before the session opened, Mr Chairman, the newspapers published an-
JUiNE 19, 1920
nouncements to the effect thalt increased salaries would be given to the judges, and that the indemnities of members of Parliament would also be increased. I think thalt the press has maligned hon. members to a certain extent in trying to make them appear in the eyes of the public as "grabbers."


Jacques Bureau: The public do not believe it.


Edmond Proulx: A few members may have agitated for an increased indemnity, but I think the large majority have been patriotic enough not to seek an increase at tlii3 time. But, although Ithe judges have met and have sent deputations to interview the Government for an increase in their salaries, the press has had never a word to say about Ithe greed of the judges. I am sure that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister would be disposed to render substantial justice to hon. members if the financial condition of the country would warrant it, but under the circumstances I am confident that he will he firm and courageous enough to do like the sturdy premier of the province of Ontario and refuse any increase in the indemnity.


Mir. GAUVREAU:: You ought to be
ashamed of yourself.


Edmond Proulx: 
Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Order.


Edmond Proulx: I do not think I heard more than half ia dozen members on this side of the House ask for an increased indemnity.	*


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I must direct the bom. member'b attention to the fact that the subject of increased indemnities to hon. members is not before the House and has nothing to do with these Estimates.


Edmond Proulx: I will conclude by repeating that I think the judges aire iais patriotic as hon. members, and, that being so, I think they will be content to' wait a few years before asking for any further salary increases.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I wish to briefly sup-port the position taken by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) in respect to judges' salaries. This matter has been under discussion for some time, aind eo far a,s my knowledge goes representations have been made bo* the .Government lasking for substantial increases in the salaries of the judges not only of the Supreme Oouft of Canada but of the higher 'Courtis in the varibup provinces. I wish to place myself as strongly in f avour of am increase in these salaries. If iwe are to have justice administered in this country as we all want to see it administered we -must have in our judiciary men not only of high character but also of high legal lalttainments, and to-day men of snch attainments are certainly able to earn vastly more in the practice of their profession than they Can on the Bench. That is not a desirable state plf affairs. I have made inquiries as to the salaries of judges in other parts Of the. Empire, and I find that in all cases they are from 30 to one hundred per cent higher than the salaries we pay. I repeat that that is not a desirable skate of affairs to have in this country, and I would therefore urge upon the Minister of Justice that he make provision, not at a future session but at the presenlt eession, for .an increase in tlhe salaries of the Supreme Court judges and of the judges in .the higher courts olf our various provimoes.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: I .agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Marquette -(Mr. Crerar). I think it is a disgrace that we pay our judges such low salaries. I refer not only to the 6a.lari.es paid to the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, but to the judges of the Supreme Courts in the provinces. The Supreme Court of Canada, as being the highest court in this country, .and la court of laist resort in many cases, is a court of such iimportance that this country should pay more than $10,000 to the Chief Justice and $9,000 to his associate judges. The hon. member (Mr. Broulx) would give the committee to understand

that tlhe judges are satisfied with the salaries they are receiving.


Edmond Proulx: Some are, but I believe some are not. Most of them are.
Mr. McQUARiRIE.: I take issue with my hon. friend. Some time during the session a delegation of judges, with members of the Canadian Bar Association, waited upon the Government and pressed very strongly their claim for more adequate salaries. So far as I am aware the judges are almost unanimous in their Contention that they are entitled to receive more than they are receiving, and in that view I absolutely concur. I would direct particular attention to the ease of the Prince Edward Island judges, who have bean discriminated against. The Chief Justice of Prince Edward Island receives only $6,500; the Master of the Bolls and Vice-Chancellor, $5,500 each. I see no reason why these judges should have been singled out m this way or why they should not receive the same salaries that are paid to other judges of the Supreme Court in the other provinces. I kndw that the judges of Prince Edward Island feel this discrimination very keenly; no doubt the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) will bear me out in that. I desire to urge very strongly upon the Government particularly upon tlie Minister of Justice the necessity for clearing this situation up, not at some other session, but right now. The judges of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island should be placed in exactly the same position as judges of the Supreme Court in other provinces.


Jacques Bureau: I desire with the consent of the committee to offer .a word of explanation. I said just now that I thought the indemnity ought to be increased. My friend from Prescott (Mr. Proulx) said that there were a few members patriotic eftough not to ask for the increase, from which the inference is to be drawn that those who do ask for it hre unpatriotic-I use the word "patriotic" in the sense in which my hon. friend used it. One of the members who is against an increased indemnity said to me: "If T did not think that I would get licked in my riding I would be with you; but if I am with you I shall be beaten; therefore I am against you."


Edmond Proulx: I resent that imputation. My hon. friend's remark would indicate that I held that view. I never said .anything of the kind.


Jacques Bureau: If the cap fits wear it.


Edmond Proulx: I said that the large majority of the members were patriotic enough not to ask for increased indemnity. I said I had heard of only about half a dozen members who were insisting on having an increased indemnity, and that these hon. members should be as patriotic as the others; that they should>not ask for an increase and should not expect it.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens, P.'E.I.):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word in support of the lemarks made by my hon. friend (Mr. McQuarrie). Last year when the amendment to the Judges Act was being put through I had the privilege of referring to this matter and of pointing out to the Acting Minister of Justice at that time the discrimination that was being made in the case of the salaries allotted to the judges of the 'Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island. The Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister were not here 6 p.m. then and Ii simply wish again to direct attention to the unfairness of giving to the judges of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island a lower salary than that paid to the judges of the Supreme Cburt in other provinces. These judges in Prince Edward Island are doing the work well; their time is fully occupied and the dignity of the position must be kept up in Prince 'Edward Island just as in .any other province. I hope that the Government will take notice of the discrimination that unhappily crept into the legislation of last year and have a remedy effected at the earliest possible moment.
Salary of purchasing agent, $3,500.
Mr. 'CAHILL: How was this purchasing agent appointed? Is he a new man?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, he has been in the department as purchasing agent for eight or nine years. In the past he was attached to the Penitentiary Branch, but about a year ago it was thought better to .make him an officer of the department in general, in order that he might make the purchases for the Dominion Police as well as any other purchases that had to be made. This is an apparent increase in the general expenses of the Department, but a corresponding decrease will be found in the Penitentiary Estimates.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it
the intention of the Government to maintain a purchasing agent in each departs

ment and also the Purchasing Commission for general purposes?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is a matter which, of course, does not belong to myself as minister of this particular department. But there is before the House a resolution dealing with.the subject of the Purchasing Commission, which is an indication, at all events that the matter is receiving consideration.
Printing, binding and distributing Supreme Court Reports. $4,500.


Frank S. Cahill: This seems to be a new
item. Will the minister give some explanation of it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It has been found-and the officers of the Supreme 'Court are strongly of the opinion-that it would be more advantageous that we should ourselves do the printing of the Supreme Court Reports, dispose of the volumes and receive payment for them, rather than have the printing and publication done by an outside firm, which firm, of course, would sell the volumes and receive the price.
Dorchester penitentiary, $156,800.


Mr. DUFF:: What is the reason for this increase?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have an estimated increase in salaries and retiring allowances of $6,000. Owing to the overcrowding at Kingston penitentiary it was found necessary to open a female prison at Dorchester. The salaries of two matrons have to be provided and salaries of three additional officers. There is an estimated increase of $1,000 in the uniform of officers and mess expenses. This is made necessary on account of the large increase in the cost of uniforms, boots, and food stuffs. There is an estimated increase of $7,000 in the cost of maintenance of convicts for similar reasons; an estimated increase of $3,000 to cover the purchase of additional steers for fattening purposes in connection with the agricultural operations of the penitentiary, and an estimated increase of $21,000 for lands building and equipment and the construction of the new cell wing begun in 1917 and equipment for same.


William Duff: Who is the warden of that institution?	.


Charles Joseph Doherty: At present there is a
vacancy in the wardenship of the Dorchester penitentiary, M;r. Pipes having retired. The matter is going through the machinery of the 'Civil Service Commission, who, we trust, will in time turn out for us a fully fledged warden.


William Duff: How long has it been in
the grinding?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Quite a long while.
Sometimes the mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.
Alberta penitentiary, $5*0,000.


Mr. WHITE (Victoria):: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: The answer is very
simple. While I am not prepared to say that there was a special falling off among the convicts in Alberta-the province still seems to be doing its duty in that regard- on looking into the matter we found that in three penitentiaries we had a number of convicts who could perfectly as well be dealt with in two. So we moved the convicts out of one penitentiary and distributed them between the other two. We expect by so doing to effect at the start- an economy of $40,000 or $50,000 per annum, and that in the future that will be greater. In penitentiaries, as in other business, there are overhead expenses, and when you can reduce your overhead you reduce the expense of maintaining each convict. If we can relieve ourselves of maintaining a separate penitentiary, with a separate staff of officers and all that goes with it, to say nothing of the interest on the money invested in the property, I think the hon. gentleman would commend our action as being good business. It is nothing invidious to the province of Alberta at all, but as we found we could do with two establishments what we were doing with three, we thought we ought to effect that economy.


William Henry White: The minister will understand that the people of Alberta are not desirous, of course, of keeping an institution like a penitentiary going full blast. Were any representations made by the province or the city of Edmonton that this peni-

tentiary should be dismantled .and done away with?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We had no representations that it should be dismantled or done away with. We have had representations from the city of Edmonton at different times that it was undesirable from the city's viewpoint that a penitentiary should be maintained on that site right in the centre of the city. That was a factor in our decision. It was objectionable from the city's point of view to have a penitentiary on that particular site, and I think the reasons why it should be looked upon as objectionable are sufficiently obvious. From our point of view also, I did consider and the officers of the penitentiary have always entertained very strongly the opinion that the centre of a big city was not a suitable place for a penitentiary from the point of view of the proper administration of the penitentiary itself. 'That was perhaps a very considerable factor in our selecting the Alberta penitentiary as the penitentiary to close when we came to the conclusion that two were sufficient. There was also the factor that there is a very valuable property there and we hope that, properly dealt with, it may produce a very fair sum of money.
Mr. WHITE. (Victoria):	The minister
will admit, I think, that the site, although it might be undesirable from the point of view of the citizens of Edmonton, had many advantages in the matter of prison labour. For instance, there was a very valuable coal mine under the ground owned by the penitentiary. We all know that prisoners can be handled under ground, and from the point of view of prison labour the Alberta penitentiary was perhaps more favourably situated than either of the others in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. When the site was purchased, it was considered a desirable location because they could handle prison labour there at some profit. I know that the property is very near the centre of the city, and that it has interfered with the opening of the streets and things like that. How does the Minister intend disposing of the property?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No final conclusion
has been come to as to the precise manner of disposing of it. We want to dispose of it to the best advantage, and at the present time I am having a valuation made of the property, both of the surface rights and the mining rights, which have a very substantial value of their own. The gentleman who is making this valuation is represented to
fMr. W. H. White.]
me to be highly competent. Fie is absolutely unconnected with the institution and is in a position to be absolutely unaffected by any local considerations. We are awaiting his report. Different recommendations have been made as to the method of disposing of the property. The city itself has made several proposals looking to the acquisition of the property. It has been .suggested that we should sell it by auction. Different plans have been recommended, and as a preliminary I felt I ought to have what I could look upon as a reliable report on the value of the property I was dealing with. When we have that we shall endeavour to dispose of the property in what may appear to be the most advantageous way.


Mr. WHITE (Victoria, Alta.):: The statement was current at the time that the department had made an offeT to the city of Edmonton that they would hand over that property to the city at initial cost to the department. I heard a rumour to that effect myself, and I have had some correspondence on the subject. However, there is no criticism to offer if the department lost nothing by the arrangement. If the department. lost nothing and some benefit accrued to the city there would be no injury to the public. Another complaint that I have heard is the fact that the department decided rather suddenly to dismantle this building. In the public mind there was an impression that the decision was arrived at rather too suddenly and that some explanation was necessary. Last yeaT when we (were asked to vote the Estimates the Government made no statement that in the near future they would do away with this institution, and that is what I had reference to when I asked what representations had been made to the Government that impelled them to come to what appeared to be a precipitate conclusion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I cannot speak positively, but if the hon. gentleman will refer to the penitentiary reports of past years he will see that the suggestion was made in the past that we could advantageously do with a smaller number of penitentiaries. I had that view myself for quite a time, and I did not realize that there was anything very sudden about our conclusion. I had discussed the matter with the superintendent off and on for several months, but the real question we had to decide was which one of the two penitentiaries, taking it all round, it would be most advantageous to dispense with. For the reasons I mentioned

a, few moments ago we decided, in view of all the circumstances, to dispense with that at Alberta. The hon. member spoke about the advantage of the mining industry. No doubt there was an advantage in the way of employment of men; but at Fort Saskatchewan we have a large farming property which we have recently enlarged in view of the change, and the opinion is entertained that where it is possible to utilize the convicts in agricultural work it is desirable for them to be so employed. I may add that from that farm we have had very substantial results in the way of production.	,


William Henry White: Not any more than from the coal.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think we ever realized any considerable sum from the coal. We did use it at the penitentiary and also to supply other penitentiaries.


Richard Smeaton White: There was never any sold?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think there was ever any sold to outside people.


Richard Smeaton White: I know that it is one of the best mines, and there is a possibility of large business being developed. Before the acquisition by the department it was considered one of the best mines.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are hopeful that the mining rights will produce substantial results.


Jacques Bureau: Looking at the question from the business standpoint, and taking into consideration overhead charges, I think the matter of fuel is one of great importance, and as between Prince Albert and Edmonton, using the convicts to mine the coal and ship it down the river to Prince Albert or send it by train, you could supply all the penitentiaries in that uistrict with coal from Edmonton.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We put that proposition to the test, and found that it cost as much money to get the coal and send it to the penitentiaries, with one exception, as we could buy the coal right there at Stony Mountain. The cost of transportation, when the coal reached the Manitoba penitentiary, brought the price up to if not more than that which we could get the coal for at Stony Mountain. It was a losing undertaking.


Jacques Bureau: That is with the price of coal as it was years ago; but with the increase in the price, I think the minister would find to-day that he could get his
coal from Edmonton to Stony Mountain cheaper.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is the experience of last fall.
Pensions-Mrs. J. A. Richards, $756.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I mistake not, that item has already been passed for last year in the Supplementary Estimates. This is the same annual payment for this year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does the minister intend to take up the other pensions?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They are not in my department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We might take them up.
Pensions payable to Mounted Police, Prince Albert Volunteers and Police Scouts on account of the Rebellion of 1895. $1,199.03.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I see that, the Nile Voyageurs are agitating to obtain some recognition from the Government. Has my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) any information on the subject?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not remember any agitation at all, although there may have been. 'Certainly there has been none in the past year.
Expenses of litigated matters connected with the Department of Justice $13,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does that effect all
those cases in the various provinces where the Minister of Justice has brought the matter before Ithe courts?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is the expense
connected with litigation that is carried on by the department itself.
Expenses under the Pecuniary Claims Convention with the United States $5,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Whalt is being done
with this Convention? It was started before the war and the war, I suppose, prevented the sittings from being held. I understand thalfc Canada was represented on that board by >the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Has any one been appointed to replace the Chief Justice and are the cases being proceeded wilth?


Robert Laird Borden: There has been no one appointed in place of the late Chief Justice. The proceedings have not been going on. There was an endeavour about fifteen months ago to have the members of the tribunal meet Iot Ithe purpose of giving judgment on some matters which had been heard but in which no decision has been announced. On account of Mr. Frorna-geot's engagements in Paris and on account,

vof those olf itihie lalte Chief Justice, jit was molt possible to arrange a meeting at that time. It was finally proposed that Mr. Fxomageot should come to this country at a latter date and if arrangements could be made with the American Commissioners it was ifelt desirable that in the early future there should be a meeting.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have been recently
given ito und'eaBtainid thalt Mir. Fromagieiot would render the judgments in the cases which halve been hiaairtd aindi the iOom mission was unaminous, and that in regard to others, where there might be a division of opinion, the other members of the tribunal would send in,- in writing and put on record simultaneously such observations ae they had to make.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have you any idea how many cases are left unsettled?


Robert Laird Borden: I have not that information but I can find out.
Cost of proceedings before the International Joint Commission $5,000.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is to provide a
fund out of which such legal proceedings as may be taken before the International Joint Commission in the course of the year may be paid
Civil Government-Supreme Court of Canada-to provide for the salary of one clerk in First Division, sub-division B-further amount required $25.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Who is the
particular clerk referred to?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is for Mr. Burns, librarian of the 'Supreme Court. It- seems thalt in the Main Estimates his annual statutory increase was overlooked. *
Penitentiaries-further amounts required. $55,120.
Mr. MACKENZIE, KING:	Would the
minister make an explanation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The present population has very largely increased and therefore our estimate for the maintenance of convicts, among olther things, proved inadequate.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does my hon. friend
say that the number of convicts have increased?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.
Customs-Salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion, including (notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act), pay for overtime of officers, and temporary Customs buildings and rentals-$4,250,000.


Mr. BURRELL:: The increase in salaries bdth in 'the Customs land Inland Revenue Departments is entirely owing to the statutory increases because there are a very large number otf employees in, the outside pervice.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are 'they all appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


Martin Burrell: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the summer months at ports like Montreal, for example, and I suppose at Toronto and elsewhere, a number of tide waiters are appointed. Are they appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


Martin Burrell: All of them are appointed by the Civil Service Commission.


Jacques Bureau: If that is the ease what is the meaning of the words in the item "notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act"?


Martin Burrell: Speaking offhand I think that has to deal with the matter of overtime of customs employees at certain ports. In such cases 'they have to go. on special duty and cannot be paid for that overtime under the ordinary statute. I think this has always been the custom in the case of >a certain class of employees namely, landing waiters.


Jacques Bureau: Does that apply to anything else in the item we are voting?


Martin Burrell: It is .almost entirely confined to. the special item of overtime.


Jacques Bureau: My contention is that you can brush aside the Civil Service Commission with respect to any item which is included in this vote. Am I right in that?


Martin Burrell: Speaking from memory -although I am pretty sure of 'the fact- I think it only applies to- those men in the service for whom we halve to .make this provision.


Mir. COPP:: Hats the minister 'before him a statement showing the different buildings that are rented for .carrying on olf custom house business in places where we have no special building of our oiwn? If he has, I would like to know iwhat rental is paid for such purpose in the town of Saickville, N.B.?


Martin Burrell: I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend that) .informiaMon. That is a matter which is dealt with entirely by the Public Works Department, and .would therefore come under their Estimates.

698S


Mr. OOPP:: Then why does the item appear here, "Temporary customs buildings and rental"? What rental does that refer to?


Martin Burrell: We pay rents for certain smaller places. I understand however that the whole matter is under the supervision of the Public Works Department.


Albert James Smith Copp: I would like to get the rental paid in the town of iSackville, N.B.


Martin Burrell: I will try to get that information for my hon. friend in a moment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: X have received letters from some merchants in Montreal who have complained that when they asked for forms in French at the customs house, or at the 'Customs Department, they did not receive them. I would like to ask my hon. friend to give the necessary orders so that when blank forms in the French language aie asked for by the merchants of Montreal or elsewhere, they will be sent.


Martin Burrell: il understand that a good many such forms are printed. However, I will make a note of what my hon. friend says.
Before the item is carried I would like to put on record-because it may be of interest to members-a statement of the collections, and expenditures and percentage of the cost of collection because in a sense perhaps-altogether dependent on how one looks at these matters-it is a pretty gratifying statement. We have amalgamated the Departments of Inland Revenue and Customs and I am glad to say that we are operating one department with a somewhat less number of officers than we had before, have collected in both departments the greatest amount of revenue on record, and have reduced the cost of collection to the lowest point since 1894. The customs collections for last year were $187,631,000, the expenditure was $4,669,000 and the cost of collection was 2.48 which is the lowest point in the whole series of years since 1894 when we began at 5.3. In the Inland Revenue Department the collections were $58,000,000 and the cost of collection 2.79.	[DOT]


Rodolphe Lemieux: Can you give the collections for both customs and inland revenue at the port of Montreal?


Martin Burrell: For the Inland Revenue Department they amounted to roughly $27,000,000; .and customs, $47,921,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will you give the collection for Toronto now?


Martin Burrell: Inland revenue, $42,949,000; customs, $13,000,000. With respect to the information asked for a moment ago by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp), I am sorry I cannot give it at present but I will obtain it for the hon. gentleman.
Excise-$1,403,108.25.
!Mr. BURRELL: The increase in the vote for stamps, etc., is necessitated by the extraordinary increase of the various articles requiring stamps, especially tobacco, which has grown enormously this year, and apparently will continue to do so.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. 179 (from the Senate) respecting the Colonial Investment and Loan Company.-Mr. Mowat. Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
M. LEMIEUX:	Who is fathering this
Bill through the House?
The 'CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mowat.
Rodolphe Lemieux: He is not present.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In his absence I will try to tell the hon. member anything he wants to know about this Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In view of what has happened to the poor investor in a similar company in British Columbia, I would like to know if the precautions have been taken in the present Bill to protect the public.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: This is simply a matter of reducing the capital stock of the company. They had to pay holders of capital stock par value-they have to get the consent of two-thirds of the stockholders, and also the consent of the Minister of Finance, before they can do anything.


Mr. VIEN:: What prompted the reduction in these days of increased capitalization?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There is not now an outlet for the capital in the West that there formerly was, and as they could not earn dividends on it, they proposed to pay it back to their shareholders.
Bill reported, and read the third time, and passed.


WESTERN ASSURANCE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 116 (from the Senate) to amend and consolidate iihe Act respecting the Western Assurance Company.-Mr. Mtowat.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Thomas Vien: Has the Finance Minister taken full cognizance of all the clauses of thiis and the other private Bills concerning the Colonial Investment and Loan, the Great West Bank, and the British America Assurance?	.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes, he has.


Thomas Vien: And he is satisfied?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes. That is the report of the committee, anyway.


Thomas Vien: These Bills were studied in the Committee on Banking and Insurance?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They were very much studied, land the Minister oif Finance recommended their passing.


Thomas Vien: All right.
Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 181 (from the Senate), to incorporate The Great West Bank of Canada.- Mr. Cowan,
Bill No. 122 (from the Senate), to amend and consolidate the Acts respecting The British America Assurance Company.-Mr. Oronyn.
Bill No. 170 (from the Semite), for the relief oif Ellen Holmes Austin.-Mr. Moiwat.
Bill No. 171 (ifiroim the Senate), for the relief of Ethelbert Gdlmour Harris. Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 172 (from the Senate), for the relief of Albert Ernest Wice.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 173 (from the Senate), foir the relief of Petetr Sutherland Cowie.-Mr. Mow at.
Bill No, 174 (from the Senate), for the relief of Boy Bradley.-Mr. MacNutt.
Bill No*. 175 (from the Senate),. for the relief of Joan Doran.-Mir. Morvvat.
Bill Nto. 176 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alexander Boss, Junior.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 177 (from the Senate), fo;r the relief of Jean Mary Siamidiford.-Mr. Porter.
Bill No. 164 (from the Senate), .for the relief oif John Durose.-Sir Sam Hughes.
; On moition of Hon. Mr. Burrell the House adjourned lat 7.05 p.m.
Monday, June 21, 1920.